https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127022 The court dismissed the petition, finding no illegality in the enhancement of shareholding and allotment of shares to the respondents. It was concluded that the petitioner was aware of the company's affairs and had acquiesced to past decisions, barring the challenge by limitation. The court also rejected claims regarding a joint venture with Menzies and provision of inspection of statutory records. The petitioner's request to manage the company's affairs in Mumbai was denied, with the court emphasizing the board of directors' exclusive authority in such matters. No relief was granted, and the petition was dismissed without costs. en-us Mon, 16 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Feb 2013 10:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127022 The court dismissed the petition, finding no illegality in the enhancement of shareholding and allotment of shares to the respondents. It was concluded that the petitioner was aware of the company's affairs and had acquiesced to past decisions, barring the challenge by limitation. The court also rejected claims regarding a joint venture with Menzies and provision of inspection of statutory records. The petitioner's request to manage the company's affairs in Mumbai was denied, with the court emphasizing the board of directors' exclusive authority in such matters. No relief was granted, and the petition was dismissed without costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 16 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=127022