Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
