https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103348 In oppression and mismanagement proceedings, the High Court held that the Company Law Board could continue to exercise its wide powers under sections 397 and 402, read with regulation 44, to pass ancillary and consequential reliefs and was not functus officio after disposal of the main petition. It also held that a pledgee or beneficial claimant could not override the voting rights of registered members, so the chairman's refusal to count proper votes was invalid and the resolutions removing directors stood carried. The court further rejected objections based on section 284 notice requirements and natural justice, and held the appeals maintainable in the circumstances. en-us Wed, 16 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:39:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103348 In oppression and mismanagement proceedings, the High Court held that the Company Law Board could continue to exercise its wide powers under sections 397 and 402, read with regulation 44, to pass ancillary and consequential reliefs and was not functus officio after disposal of the main petition. It also held that a pledgee or beneficial claimant could not override the voting rights of registered members, so the chairman's refusal to count proper votes was invalid and the resolutions removing directors stood carried. The court further rejected objections based on section 284 notice requirements and natural justice, and held the appeals maintainable in the circumstances. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 16 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103348