https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196050 In proceedings under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, the commentary notes that a legal representative of a deceased member may maintain the petition without first having the name entered in the register, and that Article 137 does not bar such claims, although delay, laches, acquiescence and inequitable conduct remain relevant. It further explains that a share allotment may be criticised as oppressive where the process lacks due procedure and transparency and dilutes an existing holding, even if the company asserts a business purpose. Despite weaknesses in the substantive challenge, the Board exercised equitable jurisdiction to order a fair valuation and buy-out of the petitioner's shares. en-us Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 May 2018 10:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196050 In proceedings under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, the commentary notes that a legal representative of a deceased member may maintain the petition without first having the name entered in the register, and that Article 137 does not bar such claims, although delay, laches, acquiescence and inequitable conduct remain relevant. It further explains that a share allotment may be criticised as oppressive where the process lacks due procedure and transparency and dilutes an existing holding, even if the company asserts a business purpose. Despite weaknesses in the substantive challenge, the Board exercised equitable jurisdiction to order a fair valuation and buy-out of the petitioner's shares. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 31 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196050