A substituted petitioner could not sustain oppression and...

A substituted petitioner could not sustain oppression and mismanagement claims where it had participated in, consented to, and benefited from the impugned allotment and related transactions, and had not amended the withdrawn original pleadings. The Tribunal held that silence in the meetings and absence of recorded dissent operated as assent, creating estoppel against later challenge. It further held that the share issue could not be invalidated on the basis of issue at par, absence of valuation, or connection of allottees with management under the Companies Act, 1956. Alleged contravention of Section 77 also failed for want of proof that company funds were used for purchase of its own shares. Securities law violations were held outside the scope of Sections 397-398 proceedings.