Oppression and mismanagement claims need full particulars, credible evidence, and timely filing; suppression can defeat equitable relief.

A petition alleging oppression and mismanagement failed because the pleadings were unsupported by documentary evidence and did not establish credible material facts showing oppressive conduct or mismanagement. The Tribunal also found the petitioner's shareholding assertions inconsistent with the share purchase arrangement and share transfers for consideration, which undermined the claim. On limitation, the cause of action was treated as having arisen on the petitioner's resignation as director in November 2012, while the petition was filed in November 2017, so the claim was time-barred. Suppression of material facts and lack of clean hands further weakened entitlement to equitable relief, and the petition was held not maintainable on both limitation and merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petition disclosed a case of oppression and mismanagement warranting relief under the Companies Act, 2013; (ii) Whether the petition was barred by limitation and otherwise rendered unsustainable because of suppression of material facts and lack of clean hands.

Issue (i): Whether the petition disclosed a case of oppression and mismanagement warranting relief under the Companies Act, 2013.

Analysis: The petition was examined against the requirement that a proceeding of this nature must plead and substantiate material facts showing oppressive conduct or mismanagement affecting the affairs of the company. The pleadings were found to be unsupported by relevant documentary material. The record also showed that the petitioner had acted under the share purchase arrangement and had transferred shares for consideration, while the petition asserted an inconsistent shareholding position. In these circumstances, the allegations were treated as uncorroborated and insufficient to establish oppression or mismanagement.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the petition was barred by limitation and otherwise rendered unsustainable because of suppression of material facts and lack of clean hands.

Analysis: The cause of action was treated as having arisen when the petitioner resigned as director in November 2012, whereas the petition was filed in November 2017. The Tribunal applied the limitation framework made applicable to proceedings under the Companies Act, 2013 and held that the relevant period had expired. It also found that the petitioner had suppressed material facts regarding the share transfers and had not approached the Tribunal with clean hands, which independently weakened entitlement to equitable relief.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petition was held to be not maintainable on limitation and on merits, and the requested reliefs were refused.

Ratio Decidendi: A petition for oppression and mismanagement must be supported by full and material particulars and credible evidence, and when the claim is stale, unsupported, and accompanied by suppression of material facts, equitable relief can be refused on both limitation and merits.

---