https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195789 A Section 397 remedy requires two affirmative preconditions: that company affairs are being conducted oppressively or prejudicially, and that a just-and-equitable winding up would unfairly prejudice the petitioners; Section 398's remedial powers do not dispense with the Section 397(2) jurisdictional finding. Factual findings of oppression or irregularity cannot substitute for the specific unfair-prejudice finding, and reliance on Section 397 must be justified where alternative remedies exist. Absent the mandatory jurisdictional finding that winding up would unfairly prejudice petitioners, consequential remedies premised on Section 397/398 are legally defective and cannot be sustained. en-us Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 May 2024 14:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195789 A Section 397 remedy requires two affirmative preconditions: that company affairs are being conducted oppressively or prejudicially, and that a just-and-equitable winding up would unfairly prejudice the petitioners; Section 398's remedial powers do not dispense with the Section 397(2) jurisdictional finding. Factual findings of oppression or irregularity cannot substitute for the specific unfair-prejudice finding, and reliance on Section 397 must be justified where alternative remedies exist. Absent the mandatory jurisdictional finding that winding up would unfairly prejudice petitioners, consequential remedies premised on Section 397/398 are legally defective and cannot be sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195789