https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344187 The tribunal found no conclusive proof of the alleged understanding supporting the petitioners' claim, because the record did not substantiate payment of the asserted consideration and the pleadings were materially inconsistent on amounts invested, refunded, and retained. The alleged forgery of the share transfer forms and resignation letters was not proved, and the admitted execution of the written documents could not be displaced by oral assertions. On the evidence, the petitioners' role in management was also found to be lacking and insignificant, so the allegation of oppression failed. No case of oppression was made out. en-us Tue, 04 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Jun 2017 05:46:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344187 The tribunal found no conclusive proof of the alleged understanding supporting the petitioners' claim, because the record did not substantiate payment of the asserted consideration and the pleadings were materially inconsistent on amounts invested, refunded, and retained. The alleged forgery of the share transfer forms and resignation letters was not proved, and the admitted execution of the written documents could not be displaced by oral assertions. On the evidence, the petitioners' role in management was also found to be lacking and insignificant, so the allegation of oppression failed. No case of oppression was made out. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 04 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344187