Oppression and mismanagement require proof of harsh, wrongful conduct; bona fide share allotment for company needs stands.

Relief for oppression and mismanagement requires a continuous course of burdensome, harsh and wrongful conduct showing lack of probity or fair dealing; mere family or business disputes do not satisfy that threshold. On the facts discussed, notices of meetings were issued, the petitioners were aware of the proceedings, and exclusion from management was not proved, so oppression was not established. The increase in share capital and subsequent allotment were treated as matters of internal management, supported by the company's financing needs and absent credible proof of mala fide purpose or abuse of power, so the allotment was not characterised as oppressive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the affairs of the company were conducted in a manner oppressive to the petitioning shareholders so as to attract relief under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. (ii) Whether the issue and allotment of additional shares was invalid or oppressive and warranted interference with the company's internal management and share structure.

Issue (i): Whether the affairs of the company were conducted in a manner oppressive to the petitioning shareholders so as to attract relief under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: Oppression under the Companies Act requires a continuous course of burdensome, harsh and wrongful conduct showing lack of fair dealing or probity. The materials showed that notices of meetings were issued, the petitioners were aware of the proceedings, and the record did not establish exclusion from management by oppressive conduct. The Court also found that the dispute largely reflected internal family and business differences rather than legally cognizable oppression, and that the discretionary jurisdiction under the sections was not to be exercised absent clear proof of such conduct.

Conclusion: The allegation of oppression was not established, and relief under Sections 397 and 398 was not warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the issue and allotment of additional shares was invalid or oppressive and warranted interference with the company's internal management and share structure.

Analysis: The increase in share capital was supported by prior financial assurances to the banker and by the company's internal requirements. The record indicated notices of the relevant meetings, participation or opportunity to participate, and absence of credible material showing mala fide allotment solely to defeat the petitioners. The Court held that enhancement of capital and the manner of allotment fell within the company's internal management, and judicial interference was not justified in the absence of mala fides or abuse of fiduciary power.

Conclusion: The additional share issue was upheld and was not treated as an act of oppression.

Final Conclusion: The petitioners failed to prove oppression or mismanagement calling for intervention under the Act, and the equitable relief granted by the Court below was found to be proper in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: Relief for oppression and mismanagement is available only on proof of a continuous course of burdensome, harsh and wrongful conduct showing lack of probity or fair dealing, and a bona fide increase of share capital undertaken for the company's needs will not be struck down merely because it alters control.

---