https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100252 In oppression and mismanagement disputes, a shareholder impeaching directors' acts must prove the allegations; the fiduciary position of directors does not, by itself, shift the burden under section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act unless the impugned transaction is one of active confidence between the parties. An inspector's report obtained under section 237 of the Companies Act, 1956 is confined to the statutory investigative scheme and cannot be used by a shareholder as additional evidence in appeal to displace the original findings. On the facts examined, the alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement were not established, so relief under sections 397 and 398 was unavailable. en-us Mon, 18 Oct 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Nov 2018 11:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100252 In oppression and mismanagement disputes, a shareholder impeaching directors' acts must prove the allegations; the fiduciary position of directors does not, by itself, shift the burden under section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act unless the impugned transaction is one of active confidence between the parties. An inspector's report obtained under section 237 of the Companies Act, 1956 is confined to the statutory investigative scheme and cannot be used by a shareholder as additional evidence in appeal to displace the original findings. On the facts examined, the alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement were not established, so relief under sections 397 and 398 was unavailable. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 18 Oct 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100252