1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Petitioners succeed in proving oppression and mismanagement, awarded reliefs including reinstatement and restitution.</h1> The petitioners alleged oppression and mismanagement by the respondents in the affairs of the company. The Board found the petition maintainable despite ... - Issues Involved:1. Allegations of oppression and mismanagement u/s 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. Maintainability of the petition in light of previous proceedings.3. Allegations of concealment of material facts and unclean hands.4. Merits of the case regarding acts of oppression and mismanagement.5. Relief to be granted.Summary:1. Allegations of Oppression and Mismanagement:The petitioners alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the respondent company (R-1) by the respondents, including the deliberate omission of notices for board meetings, illegal transfer of shares, ousting of petitioner No. 1 from the board, and mismanagement of funds resulting in losses.2. Maintainability of the Petition:The respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable due to previous identical proceedings before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which were dismissed. However, the Board found that the principle of res judicata was inapplicable as the present petition contained new allegations arising from events subsequent to the previous petition.3. Allegations of Concealment of Material Facts and Unclean Hands:The respondents contended that the petitioners had concealed the existence of previous proceedings, thus coming with unclean hands. The Board, however, found that the respondents failed to prove that the petitioners had come with unclean hands and noted that the respondents themselves had acted prejudicially by converting R-1 into a family company and mismanaging funds.4. Merits of the Case:The Board found that the petitioners had made out a case u/s 397 and 398 of the Act, with specific instances of oppression and mismanagement being proven. The respondents failed to refute the allegations and instead raised preliminary objections which were not tenable. The Board concluded that the respondents acted with a nefarious design to oust the petitioners and gain control over the company.5. Relief Granted:The Board ordered the following reliefs:i. Restoration of P-1 on the Board of Directors of R-1 company.ii. Proportionate representation of petitioners on the Board in accordance with their shareholding ratio.iii. Restoration of amounts siphoned off by R-2, with an independent auditor to ascertain the amounts.iv. R-1 company to give consequential effects to the above directions forthwith.The petition was allowed, vacating all interim orders, and no order as to cost was made.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
