https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193503 A company law oppression and mismanagement dispute examined whether a minority threshold objection and pending civil proceedings barred the petition, whether the petitioners were validly registered holders of 3,19,200 shares, and whether a later share issue, alleged conversion of equi-preference shares, and board reconstitution were lawful. The analysis treated the dispute as shareholder grievance rather than enforcement of private MOUs, found the shareholding and registration supported by contemporaneous records, held the preference-share arrangement and conversion ultra vires and ineffective, and found the challenged directorship changes unsupported by valid notice, quorum, or filings. The impugned acts were treated as oppressive and as justifying relief restoring legality in shareholding and management. en-us Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Aug 2017 12:28:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193503 A company law oppression and mismanagement dispute examined whether a minority threshold objection and pending civil proceedings barred the petition, whether the petitioners were validly registered holders of 3,19,200 shares, and whether a later share issue, alleged conversion of equi-preference shares, and board reconstitution were lawful. The analysis treated the dispute as shareholder grievance rather than enforcement of private MOUs, found the shareholding and registration supported by contemporaneous records, held the preference-share arrangement and conversion ultra vires and ineffective, and found the challenged directorship changes unsupported by valid notice, quorum, or filings. The impugned acts were treated as oppressive and as justifying relief restoring legality in shareholding and management. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193503