https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111751 Minority shareholders alleging oppression and mismanagement could not challenge the company's EPC contract or seek reliefs affecting the company's contractual rights, because management of the company lies with the board and shareholders have no role in day-to-day administration. Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 provide remedies for oppression and mismanagement, but they do not allow shareholders to enforce the company's claims against third parties or dispute business prudence in contractual dealings. Any breach of contract belongs to the company as a juristic person, and where arbitration is provided, the dispute remains between the contracting parties. No question of law arose under section 10F, as the standing issue followed settled corporate principles. en-us Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Jul 2026 15:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111751 Minority shareholders alleging oppression and mismanagement could not challenge the company's EPC contract or seek reliefs affecting the company's contractual rights, because management of the company lies with the board and shareholders have no role in day-to-day administration. Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 provide remedies for oppression and mismanagement, but they do not allow shareholders to enforce the company's claims against third parties or dispute business prudence in contractual dealings. Any breach of contract belongs to the company as a juristic person, and where arbitration is provided, the dispute remains between the contracting parties. No question of law arose under section 10F, as the standing issue followed settled corporate principles. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111751