Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
