<?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>1987 (1) TMI 433 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101715</link>
    <description>Relief for oppression or mismanagement under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 requires proved oppressive conduct or prejudice to the company, and the record here did not show diversion of funds, falsification of accounts, or other material particulars. A voluntarily executed five-year managing director arrangement was treated as binding, and a later resolution could not unilaterally override it. Continuous absence from board meetings attracted automatic cessation of office under section 283(1)(g). The issue of additional directors and fresh share allotment failed because the steps were supported by company needs and no mala fides or illegality was established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:45:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138764" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (1) TMI 433 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101715</link>
      <description>Relief for oppression or mismanagement under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 requires proved oppressive conduct or prejudice to the company, and the record here did not show diversion of funds, falsification of accounts, or other material particulars. A voluntarily executed five-year managing director arrangement was treated as binding, and a later resolution could not unilaterally override it. Continuous absence from board meetings attracted automatic cessation of office under section 283(1)(g). The issue of additional directors and fresh share allotment failed because the steps were supported by company needs and no mala fides or illegality was established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101715</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>