Service permanent establishment requires non-auxiliary services, while arm's-length distributor remuneration precludes further profit attribution in I...
Make-available condition excludes standard SaaS subscription receipts where customers receive no independently usable technical knowledge after subscr...
Anonymous donation classification fails where charitable trusts maintain undisputed donor identity records and evidence corpus contributions' intended...
The petition alleges oppression and mismanagement by the company's majority shareholders against the petitioners, who were removed as directors through an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM). The key points are: The burden is on the petitioners to prove oppressive conduct u/s 242. The EGM notice for removal complied with legal requirements, and the meeting was validly held. The majority shareholders' decision to remove directors cannot be judicially scrutinized as it is part of corporate democracy. Mere inconvenience caused by the legal process doesn't negate its validity. Oppression requires continuous wrongful acts by the majority against the minority, not just lack of confidence. The petitioners failed to prove mismanagement or likelihood of future prejudicial conduct due to the change in management. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of evidence of oppression or mismanagement.
The petition alleges oppression and mismanagement by the company's majority shareholders against the petitioners, who were removed as directors through an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM). The key points are: The burden is on the petitioners to prove oppressive conduct u/s 242. The EGM notice for removal complied with legal requirements, and the meeting was validly held. The majority shareholders' decision to remove directors cannot be judicially scrutinized as it is part of corporate democracy. Mere inconvenience caused by the legal process doesn't negate its validity. Oppression requires continuous wrongful acts by the majority against the minority, not just lack of confidence. The petitioners failed to prove mismanagement or likelihood of future prejudicial conduct due to the change in management. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of evidence of oppression or mismanagement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
