Mark-to-Market losses on principal-protected debentures are deductible as business expenditure when the obligation is crystallized under mercantile ac...
Deferred Payment of Customs Duty extended to Eligible Manufacturer Importers with electronic registration and ICEGATE authentication for conditional c...
Tariff classification determines GST schedule and rate; beverages in Schedule III attract the higher rate, tea extracts and syrups in Schedule I attra...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings barred...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings barred the challenge to cessation from directorship and dilution of shareholding where the appellant was found to have knowledge of the impugned acts by January 2013, so time ran from that point and a continuing cause of action was rejected on the facts. A new contention based on the Articles of Association and the Companies Act was not entertained because it had not been raised before the adjudicating authority. The direction for valuation by an independent registered valuer was upheld, as the appellant had opportunities to participate, the relevant date was correctly applied, and no basis was shown to reopen the valuation in appeal.
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings barred the challenge to cessation from directorship and dilution of shareholding where the appellant was found to have knowledge of the impugned acts by January 2013, so time ran from that point and a continuing cause of action was rejected on the facts. A new contention based on the Articles of Association and the Companies Act was not entertained because it had not been raised before the adjudicating authority. The direction for valuation by an independent registered valuer was upheld, as the appellant had opportunities to participate, the relevant date was correctly applied, and no basis was shown to reopen the valuation in appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
