https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345348 The court determined that Natarajan was a promoter, applied quasi-partnership principles to the public listed company, recognized a deadlock in management, deemed paper ballots at the AGM improper, found lack of transparency in allowing the Managing Director to use company property, upheld a special resolution, identified oppression in failing to reappoint Natarajan, and directed the controlling group to purchase shares. The appeals were partly allowed, modifying the direction for SVG to purchase shares and remanding the matter to NCLT for determining the purchase price by the controlling group, with an injunction on share transfers. en-us Tue, 04 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Jul 2017 06:43:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345348 The court determined that Natarajan was a promoter, applied quasi-partnership principles to the public listed company, recognized a deadlock in management, deemed paper ballots at the AGM improper, found lack of transparency in allowing the Managing Director to use company property, upheld a special resolution, identified oppression in failing to reappoint Natarajan, and directed the controlling group to purchase shares. The appeals were partly allowed, modifying the direction for SVG to purchase shares and remanding the matter to NCLT for determining the purchase price by the controlling group, with an injunction on share transfers. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 04 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345348