https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329878 In a closely held company, sale of assets and a joint development arrangement undertaken during financial distress were not treated as oppression or mismanagement where the company had become private, no bad faith or fraud was shown, and the transactions were aimed at averting winding-up, DRT, and SARFAESI proceedings. Alleged defects in notice and quorum did not invalidate the sale deeds on the facts. The joint development agreement was regarded as within corporate powers because it did not amount to a separate real estate business. On surcharge, the monetary quantification was found arbitrary, but the order was not disturbed in equity. The material point is that past concluded transactions will not be set aside absent illegality warranting intervention under the Companies Act, 1956. en-us Mon, 25 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Jul 2016 11:06:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329878 In a closely held company, sale of assets and a joint development arrangement undertaken during financial distress were not treated as oppression or mismanagement where the company had become private, no bad faith or fraud was shown, and the transactions were aimed at averting winding-up, DRT, and SARFAESI proceedings. Alleged defects in notice and quorum did not invalidate the sale deeds on the facts. The joint development agreement was regarded as within corporate powers because it did not amount to a separate real estate business. On surcharge, the monetary quantification was found arbitrary, but the order was not disturbed in equity. The material point is that past concluded transactions will not be set aside absent illegality warranting intervention under the Companies Act, 1956. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 25 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329878