https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113908 The Company Law Board (CLB) had jurisdiction to grant relief for breach of investment agreements and oppression. Despite the respondents' undertakings, oppression was found to persist, leading to the direction for the second respondent to transfer shares. The High Court upheld the CLB's decision but modified the reconstitution of the board to protect the second respondent's interests. The claim on the Machilipatnam Port Project was not deemed oppressive. The CLB's reliance on the memorandum of understanding was justified, and its relief was sustained with modifications. Personal responsibility for amounts received by the second respondent was not imposed. en-us Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113908 The Company Law Board (CLB) had jurisdiction to grant relief for breach of investment agreements and oppression. Despite the respondents' undertakings, oppression was found to persist, leading to the direction for the second respondent to transfer shares. The High Court upheld the CLB's decision but modified the reconstitution of the board to protect the second respondent's interests. The claim on the Machilipatnam Port Project was not deemed oppressive. The CLB's reliance on the memorandum of understanding was justified, and its relief was sustained with modifications. Personal responsibility for amounts received by the second respondent was not imposed. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113908