https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267454 Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 were applied to a closely held family company where delayed and unexplained filings, disputed resignation, and exclusion from management were treated as indicators of oppression. The earlier civil suit did not bar the company petition because it had not finally decided the oppression and mismanagement issues and company-law remedies were distinct. The alleged resignation of the petitioner was found invalid, the petitioner was treated as continuing as director, and the appointment of R3 together with the increase in authorised share capital was held oppressive and invalid. An independent audit was directed, with restoration of proper management and statutory compliance. en-us Mon, 22 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 13:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267454 Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 were applied to a closely held family company where delayed and unexplained filings, disputed resignation, and exclusion from management were treated as indicators of oppression. The earlier civil suit did not bar the company petition because it had not finally decided the oppression and mismanagement issues and company-law remedies were distinct. The alleged resignation of the petitioner was found invalid, the petitioner was treated as continuing as director, and the appointment of R3 together with the increase in authorised share capital was held oppressive and invalid. An independent audit was directed, with restoration of proper management and statutory compliance. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 22 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267454