https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109077 The court found that the actions of GE & Bechtel post-2nd May 2002 were not oppressive but aimed at protecting the company's interests. The board meeting on 4th June 2002 was held in accordance with regulations, and the appointment of Mr. Peter Freeman was deemed valid. The AGM on 9-9-2002 did not involve illegalities, and the nomination of respondent Nos. 6 to 9 was not oppressive. As no illegalities were established, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Company Judge's order. en-us Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Aug 2017 11:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109077 The court found that the actions of GE & Bechtel post-2nd May 2002 were not oppressive but aimed at protecting the company's interests. The board meeting on 4th June 2002 was held in accordance with regulations, and the appointment of Mr. Peter Freeman was deemed valid. The AGM on 9-9-2002 did not involve illegalities, and the nomination of respondent Nos. 6 to 9 was not oppressive. As no illegalities were established, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Company Judge's order. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 31 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109077