https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194114 A petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as maintainable against a banking company because the Companies Act continued to apply except where inconsistent with banking law. The Board stated that a single act may amount to oppression if its effect is oppressive, and held that a chairman cannot withdraw a resolution already placed before members without their approval. On the facts, the unilateral withdrawal of the right issue resolution was oppressive, but the right issue itself was not quashed. For the requisitioned EGM, an observer was considered sufficient to ensure compliance with statutory procedure. en-us Tue, 24 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Aug 2017 16:50:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194114 A petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as maintainable against a banking company because the Companies Act continued to apply except where inconsistent with banking law. The Board stated that a single act may amount to oppression if its effect is oppressive, and held that a chairman cannot withdraw a resolution already placed before members without their approval. On the facts, the unilateral withdrawal of the right issue resolution was oppressive, but the right issue itself was not quashed. For the requisitioned EGM, an observer was considered sufficient to ensure compliance with statutory procedure. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 24 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194114