https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237418 The court held that the shareholder of a holding company lacked standing to file a petition against subsidiary companies under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, as they did not meet the requirements of section 399. The court emphasized the independence of subsidiary companies and dismissed the petition aimed at tarnishing the holding company's image. The appeals by the holding company and its subsidiaries were allowed, setting aside the single judge's order and restoring the Company Law Board's decision. The respondent's statutory rights under section 214(2) were upheld, directing expeditious disposal by the Company Law Board at Madras. en-us Wed, 07 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:56:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237418 The court held that the shareholder of a holding company lacked standing to file a petition against subsidiary companies under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, as they did not meet the requirements of section 399. The court emphasized the independence of subsidiary companies and dismissed the petition aimed at tarnishing the holding company's image. The appeals by the holding company and its subsidiaries were allowed, setting aside the single judge's order and restoring the Company Law Board's decision. The respondent's statutory rights under section 214(2) were upheld, directing expeditious disposal by the Company Law Board at Madras. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 07 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237418