https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110875 Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure barred a further intra-court appeal from a Single Judge's decision under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, so the Letters Patent route was unavailable. On the merits, a continuing course of exclusionary conduct, invalid notices, questionable board resolutions, removal from directorship in absence, and steps to dilute shareholding amounted to oppression and mismanagement under sections 397 and 398. Winding up was found unnecessary; the proper relief was restorative, including setting aside impugned control-and-allotment measures and directing a fresh board meeting with lawful notice. en-us Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Sep 2025 12:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110875 Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure barred a further intra-court appeal from a Single Judge's decision under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, so the Letters Patent route was unavailable. On the merits, a continuing course of exclusionary conduct, invalid notices, questionable board resolutions, removal from directorship in absence, and steps to dilute shareholding amounted to oppression and mismanagement under sections 397 and 398. Winding up was found unnecessary; the proper relief was restorative, including setting aside impugned control-and-allotment measures and directing a fresh board meeting with lawful notice. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110875