https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194269 The Company Law Board clarified that the removal of the petitioner as the managing director of the family company was oppressive. The petitioner was given the option to resume the role without a review of the original order, emphasizing the amendment as rectifying an accidental omission. The Board's decision was made under regulation 45 of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991, and did not constitute a review of the initial order. The application seeking clarification was disposed of with directions for the petitioner's reinstatement as managing director. en-us Mon, 12 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Sep 2017 17:59:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194269 The Company Law Board clarified that the removal of the petitioner as the managing director of the family company was oppressive. The petitioner was given the option to resume the role without a review of the original order, emphasizing the amendment as rectifying an accidental omission. The Board's decision was made under regulation 45 of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991, and did not constitute a review of the initial order. The application seeking clarification was disposed of with directions for the petitioner's reinstatement as managing director. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 12 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194269