https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126887 Rights issue disputes raised questions about whether an affirmative vote requirement in article 157A applied to a pro rata capital increase and whether the provision was inconsistent with the Companies Act. The Company Law Board treated article 157A as void for being ultra vires section 81 and found no prima facie oppression beyond the rights issue, since shares were offered proportionately to all shareholders. Interim restraint against the rights issue was vacated, and the High Court did not interfere. The company petition was directed to be finally disposed of within three months. Isolated allegations were considered insufficient to sustain oppression claims under sections 397 and 398. en-us Wed, 01 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Sep 2014 11:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126887 Rights issue disputes raised questions about whether an affirmative vote requirement in article 157A applied to a pro rata capital increase and whether the provision was inconsistent with the Companies Act. The Company Law Board treated article 157A as void for being ultra vires section 81 and found no prima facie oppression beyond the rights issue, since shares were offered proportionately to all shareholders. Interim restraint against the rights issue was vacated, and the High Court did not interfere. The company petition was directed to be finally disposed of within three months. Isolated allegations were considered insufficient to sustain oppression claims under sections 397 and 398. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 01 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126887