https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101813 A petition for oppression and mismanagement may fail where the same grievances are already being pursued in a parallel proceeding before the Company Law Board, because the extraordinary remedy is not meant to be duplicated. The required shareholder consent under the Companies (Court) Rules and section 399 must be informed and issue-specific, meaning consenting members must apply their minds to the particular allegations and reliefs in the petition; a blanket consent is insufficient. Majority shareholding, however, is not itself a bar, because section 399(1) prescribes only the minimum shareholding needed to maintain the petition and no maximum limit. en-us Thu, 28 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Feb 2012 12:11:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101813 A petition for oppression and mismanagement may fail where the same grievances are already being pursued in a parallel proceeding before the Company Law Board, because the extraordinary remedy is not meant to be duplicated. The required shareholder consent under the Companies (Court) Rules and section 399 must be informed and issue-specific, meaning consenting members must apply their minds to the particular allegations and reliefs in the petition; a blanket consent is insufficient. Majority shareholding, however, is not itself a bar, because section 399(1) prescribes only the minimum shareholding needed to maintain the petition and no maximum limit. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 28 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101813