https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343982 The Tribunal found both the petitioner and the second respondent eligible to file their respective petitions. It determined that the petitioner lacked standing to challenge the increase in share capital and allotment of bonus shares. The Tribunal also ruled that the termination of the petitioner's employment did not amount to oppression or mismanagement. While some allegations were not substantiated, the Tribunal recommended the petitioner sell shares to resolve the ongoing dispute, ultimately disposing of both petitions without costs, as no oppression or mismanagement was established. en-us Mon, 24 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jun 2017 07:22:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343982 The Tribunal found both the petitioner and the second respondent eligible to file their respective petitions. It determined that the petitioner lacked standing to challenge the increase in share capital and allotment of bonus shares. The Tribunal also ruled that the termination of the petitioner's employment did not amount to oppression or mismanagement. While some allegations were not substantiated, the Tribunal recommended the petitioner sell shares to resolve the ongoing dispute, ultimately disposing of both petitions without costs, as no oppression or mismanagement was established. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 24 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343982