Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Scientific research association approval requires continuing SIRO status, annual donation reporting, and donor certificates for the approved foundatio...
Scientific research institution approval is conditional on SIRO recognition, annual donation reporting, donor certification, and prescribed compliance...
Page of 4878
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97553 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The NCLAT upheld the NCLT's decision to refuse waiver u/ss 244(1)(a) and (b) of the Companies Act 2013 to the Appellants, who held only 5.83% shareholding, to file an oppression and mismanagement case u/s 241. While the NCLAT can make a preliminary assessment to determine if the petition falls within Sections 241 and 244, it found no exceptional circumstances to bypass the minimum shareholding requirement. The Appellants' primary grievance revolved around the removal of one Appellant as Director, which the Supreme Court has held cannot trigger oppression relief u/ss 241 and 242. The petition did not substantiate a genuine case of oppression and mismanagement, and the NCLT rightly refused the waiver based on its assessment.
The NCLAT upheld the NCLT's decision to refuse waiver u/ss 244(1)(a) and (b) of the Companies Act 2013 to the Appellants, who held only 5.83% shareholding, to file an oppression and mismanagement case u/s 241. While the NCLAT can make a preliminary assessment to determine if the petition falls within Sections 241 and 244, it found no exceptional circumstances to bypass the minimum shareholding requirement. The Appellants' primary grievance revolved around the removal of one Appellant as Director, which the Supreme Court has held cannot trigger oppression relief u/ss 241 and 242. The petition did not substantiate a genuine case of oppression and mismanagement, and the NCLT rightly refused the waiver based on its assessment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4878 
