https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344422 The Tribunal dismissed the petition, finding that the appointment of Respondent No. 3 as Director was justified in the Company's interest. The alleged wrongful letting out of the Company's flat was deemed lawful as it was purchased by the Company before the petitioner's induction. The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner failed to prove oppression or mismanagement by the respondents, noting the lack of evidence and the petitioner's non-participation in the Company's affairs. The petition was dismissed without cost, emphasizing that the petitioner had not established the allegations against the respondents. en-us Fri, 05 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Jun 2017 12:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344422 The Tribunal dismissed the petition, finding that the appointment of Respondent No. 3 as Director was justified in the Company's interest. The alleged wrongful letting out of the Company's flat was deemed lawful as it was purchased by the Company before the petitioner's induction. The Tribunal concluded that the petitioner failed to prove oppression or mismanagement by the respondents, noting the lack of evidence and the petitioner's non-participation in the Company's affairs. The petition was dismissed without cost, emphasizing that the petitioner had not established the allegations against the respondents. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 05 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344422