<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1965 (12) TMI 65 - IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98273</link>
    <description>Relief under section 210 of the Companies Act, 1948 requires pleaded facts showing that the company&#039;s affairs were being conducted oppressively towards the petitioner in his capacity as a member, with conduct amounting to unfair dealing, harsh treatment, or a lack of probity in the company&#039;s affairs. Mere dissatisfaction with management, disagreement over policy, inefficiency, or carelessness is not enough. The pleaded complaints here amounted only to allegations of unwise management and policy disputes, and no oppressive conduct by the managing director or unfair advantage secured by the controlling shareholders was shown. The petition therefore disclosed no ground for oppression relief and was demurrable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Dec 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:24:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135330" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (12) TMI 65 - IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98273</link>
      <description>Relief under section 210 of the Companies Act, 1948 requires pleaded facts showing that the company&#039;s affairs were being conducted oppressively towards the petitioner in his capacity as a member, with conduct amounting to unfair dealing, harsh treatment, or a lack of probity in the company&#039;s affairs. Mere dissatisfaction with management, disagreement over policy, inefficiency, or carelessness is not enough. The pleaded complaints here amounted only to allegations of unwise management and policy disputes, and no oppressive conduct by the managing director or unfair advantage secured by the controlling shareholders was shown. The petition therefore disclosed no ground for oppression relief and was demurrable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Dec 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98273</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>