https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99283 The court found both appeals incompetent due to the company's waiver of the right to appeal and the improper filing by shareholders instead of directors. Regarding the reconstitution of the board, the court held that it was legal under sections 397, 398, and 402, despite technical violations. The court justified the seven-year term for the reconstituted board to address mismanagement issues. Appeal No. 154/69 was dismissed with costs to be paid by the shareholders, while Appeal No. 153/69 was also dismissed with costs to be paid by the appellants. en-us Tue, 13 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Jul 2026 15:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99283 The court found both appeals incompetent due to the company's waiver of the right to appeal and the improper filing by shareholders instead of directors. Regarding the reconstitution of the board, the court held that it was legal under sections 397, 398, and 402, despite technical violations. The court justified the seven-year term for the reconstituted board to address mismanagement issues. Appeal No. 154/69 was dismissed with costs to be paid by the shareholders, while Appeal No. 153/69 was also dismissed with costs to be paid by the appellants. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 13 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99283