https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337382 Removal of a director was treated as valid where statutory notice and representation requirements were met, and the removal was justified by involvement in competing businesses and alleged intellectual-property theft rather than an intent to oppress. Amendments to the articles conferring management powers, the EOGM, capital increase and share allotment were treated as valid because the petitioner attended or knew of the relevant meetings and transactions. Director resignations and alleged denial of access to company records likewise did not establish oppression or mismanagement. Despite no such finding, relief contemplated a respondent purchase of the petitioner's shareholding at a tribunal-appointed valuer's determination, if the petitioner agreed to sell. en-us Mon, 07 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Jan 2017 12:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337382 Removal of a director was treated as valid where statutory notice and representation requirements were met, and the removal was justified by involvement in competing businesses and alleged intellectual-property theft rather than an intent to oppress. Amendments to the articles conferring management powers, the EOGM, capital increase and share allotment were treated as valid because the petitioner attended or knew of the relevant meetings and transactions. Director resignations and alleged denial of access to company records likewise did not establish oppression or mismanagement. Despite no such finding, relief contemplated a respondent purchase of the petitioner's shareholding at a tribunal-appointed valuer's determination, if the petitioner agreed to sell. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 07 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337382