https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99849 A bona fide rights issue made to comply with a binding foreign-exchange requirement was treated as a lawful means of reducing non-resident shareholding and was not oppressive merely because it affected control. The Court held that irregular notice or incidental alteration in control did not establish oppression where no proprietary right of the foreign holding company was unlawfully defeated. It further held that the rights issue resolution and an additional director's appointment were not invalid for lack of probity, interested participation, or quorum. A section 43A company retaining private-company characteristics could not claim an unrestricted right to renounce rights shares under section 81(1)(c) when that would conflict with the company's structural restrictions and the statutory dilution requirement. en-us Thu, 07 May 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Dec 2018 14:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99849 A bona fide rights issue made to comply with a binding foreign-exchange requirement was treated as a lawful means of reducing non-resident shareholding and was not oppressive merely because it affected control. The Court held that irregular notice or incidental alteration in control did not establish oppression where no proprietary right of the foreign holding company was unlawfully defeated. It further held that the rights issue resolution and an additional director's appointment were not invalid for lack of probity, interested participation, or quorum. A section 43A company retaining private-company characteristics could not claim an unrestricted right to renounce rights shares under section 81(1)(c) when that would conflict with the company's structural restrictions and the statutory dilution requirement. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 07 May 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99849