https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195618 In a closely held company, an increase in authorised capital and selective allotment of shares may be oppressive where the power is used to shift control rather than meet genuine corporate needs. The text notes that inadequate disclosure in meeting notices and a pre-planned allotment to one group supported cancellation of the 1.5 lakh shares. It also states that a director's removal based on votes derived from the invalid allotment could not stand, and that the extraordinary general meeting was not properly convened. Finally, a mere agreement to sell shares was said not to divest shareholder rights absent a legally completed transfer, justifying deletion of adverse remarks in the register. en-us Tue, 16 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Nov 2017 10:25:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195618 In a closely held company, an increase in authorised capital and selective allotment of shares may be oppressive where the power is used to shift control rather than meet genuine corporate needs. The text notes that inadequate disclosure in meeting notices and a pre-planned allotment to one group supported cancellation of the 1.5 lakh shares. It also states that a director's removal based on votes derived from the invalid allotment could not stand, and that the extraordinary general meeting was not properly convened. Finally, a mere agreement to sell shares was said not to divest shareholder rights absent a legally completed transfer, justifying deletion of adverse remarks in the register. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 16 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195618