<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (9) TMI 655 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237223</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the company petition, finding that Premier Roller Flour Mills is an unlisted company, and the petitioners failed to prove otherwise. The petitioners&#039; claims of oppression and mismanagement were rejected as they were estopped from challenging the transfer of shares, having received benefits and ratified the transfer through a compromise deed. The court concluded that the petitioners did not meet the criteria to file the petition under the relevant Act, and their actions were deemed as forum shopping with ulterior motives. All interim orders were vacated, and pending applications closed, with no costs awarded to the petitioners.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199630" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (9) TMI 655 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237223</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the company petition, finding that Premier Roller Flour Mills is an unlisted company, and the petitioners failed to prove otherwise. The petitioners&#039; claims of oppression and mismanagement were rejected as they were estopped from challenging the transfer of shares, having received benefits and ratified the transfer through a compromise deed. The court concluded that the petitioners did not meet the criteria to file the petition under the relevant Act, and their actions were deemed as forum shopping with ulterior motives. All interim orders were vacated, and pending applications closed, with no costs awarded to the petitioners.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237223</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>