Quasi-partnership and continuing wrong claims failed, but a fair-value exit was still ordered in a family company dispute.

A closely held family company was not treated as a quasi-partnership because there was no equality of shareholding, no binding management understanding, and no legal basis to rewrite the constitutional framework. The principal complaints founded on an alleged family settlement, historical share transfers and a rights issue were held time-barred and not revived as a continuing wrong, as the later record and inspection disputes did not convert the earlier events into a fresh cause of action. Even so, in the peculiar family-dispute setting, equitable relief was granted and the respondents were directed to buy out the petitioners' shares at fair value to be determined by an independent registered valuer.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the company could be treated as a quasi-partnership and whether the petitioners were entitled to invoke the oppression and mismanagement jurisdiction on that basis; (ii) whether the principal grievances founded on the alleged family settlement, share transfers, rights issue and other early acts were barred by limitation or could be treated as continuing wrongs; (iii) whether, despite rejection of the substantive oppression allegations, the petitioners were entitled to an exit and buy-out on fair valuation.

Issue (i): whether the company could be treated as a quasi-partnership and whether the petitioners were entitled to invoke the oppression and mismanagement jurisdiction on that basis.

Analysis: The company was not shown to have maintained equality of shareholding or an enforceable understanding of participation in management. The material on record showed substantial and long-standing inequality in shareholding, absence of proof of a binding family arrangement conferring partnership-like rights, and no legal basis to rewrite the company's constitutional framework. The asserted incidents of family history, prior business form, or informal participation did not establish a quasi-partnership in law.

Conclusion: The plea that the company was a quasi-partnership failed, and the substantive oppression and mismanagement case based on that premise was not established.

Issue (ii): whether the principal grievances founded on the alleged family settlement, share transfers, rights issue and other early acts were barred by limitation or could be treated as continuing wrongs.

Analysis: The alleged settlement, the share acquisition episodes, and the rights issue were all of long vintage and were not shown to be part of a continuing wrong. No convincing evidence established the alleged settlement or illegality in the historical share movements, and the petitioners had not promptly challenged the rights issue or the other foundational events. The later complaints about records, accounts, inspection, proxies, and related matters were treated as insufficient to convert the earlier events into a continuing cause of action.

Conclusion: The major historical grievances were held to be time-barred and not saved by the doctrine of continuing wrong.

Issue (iii): whether, despite rejection of the substantive oppression allegations, the petitioners were entitled to an exit and buy-out on fair valuation.

Analysis: Although the allegations of oppression and mismanagement were not proved, the company was a closely held family concern with a long-drawn family dispute, and the interests of complete and final cessation of litigation were considered. Relying on equitable considerations, the Tribunal held that a buy-out could still be directed in the peculiar facts to do substantial justice between the parties.

Conclusion: The petitioners were granted an exit right and the respondent group was directed to buy the petitioners' shares at fair value to be determined by an independent registered valuer.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only to the limited extent of securing a fair-value exit for the petitioners, while the broader allegations of oppression, mismanagement, quasi-partnership and related historical grievances were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A company will not be treated as a quasi-partnership absent proof of equality of shareholding and a binding management understanding, and even where oppression is not established, equitable relief such as a fair-value buy-out may still be granted in exceptional family-company disputes to do substantial justice.

---