pass an order of permanent injunction against the second and third respondents from interfering with the management of the SMHPL and its Hotel Windsor ... file of the Sub Court at Ernakulam for permanent injunction restraining the second respondent and his agents from interfering with the management of the SMHPL
spite of an order of injunction dated November 6, 2002, obtained by the second respondent in C. S. No. 477 of 2000, on the file ... declaration and injunction that the second respondent and petitioner herein are not chairman and director of the company respectively. The civil court, while disposing
directors of the company are related to the second respondent. The second respondent had filed a suit in collusion with the company before the City ... injunction application was taken up for disposal and after hearing the parties the City Civil Court dismissed the injunction application, upon which the second respondent
directors of the
Company are related to the second respondent. The second respondent had
filed a suit in collusion with the Company before the City ... injunction application was taken up for disposal and after hearing the
parties the City Civil Court dismissed the injunction application, upon which
the second respondent
Bhadresh Kantilal Shah vs Magotteaux International And Ors. on 16 December, 1999
Equivalent citations: [2002
When the second respondent was validly removed from the office of Managing Director at the Board meeting held on 29.12.2001, the second respondent ... respondent for a decree of permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the management and functioning of the second respondent as the Managing Director
unanimous resolution removed the second respondent as the Managing Director of the Company and appointed the second and fourth petitioners as the directors ... Principal Junior Civil Judge at Palakol praying for a permanent injunction restraining the second respondent from interfering with the first petitioner's peaceful possession
books of account of the Company; and
(vi) to direct the second respondent to render accounts in respect of the rentals collected from ... same time, the second respondent's uncle filed a civil suit seeking an order of injunction restraining the Company from holding the annual general
authorisation to operate bank accounts. The second respondent was not named as a signatory. By other businesses, the second respondent has been sought ... company right from its incorporation. Therefore, the second respondent is fully justified in seeking for a permanent injunction against the implementation of the extraordinary general
between the partners of the third respondent and the second respondent, by which the second respondent had agreed to pay to the partners ... third respondent, to enable the second respondent and his nominees to enjoy the assets of the third respondent. The second respondent paid
