Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a shareholder of a company has locus standi to seek setting aside of a court sale of company property under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and whether allegations of fraud or collusion in the management of the company entitle such shareholder to maintain the application in his own name.
Analysis: A shareholder is interested in the fortunes of the company, but the property belongs to the company as a separate legal person and not to the individual shareholder. A complaint that company property has been mismanaged or fraudulently disposed of does not, by itself, give every shareholder a direct right to challenge the transaction in his own name. Where the grievance is that the affairs of the company are being conducted prejudicially, oppressively, or in fraud of the company, the law provides a specific remedy under section 153-C of the Indian Companies Act. The shareholder may seek appropriate relief on behalf of the company through that statutory mechanism, but cannot, on that footing alone, invoke Order XXI, Rule 90 as if the property were his own.
Conclusion: The shareholder had no locus standi to maintain the application to set aside the sale in his own name, and the appropriate remedy lay under section 153-C of the Indian Companies Act.