Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
