<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (2) TMI 629 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196145</link>
    <description>The Company Law Board ordered the cancellation of 1340 additional shares allotted oppressively to gain majority control, restoring the shareholding to its prior state. The appointment of the Appellants as directors was declared null and void due to improper notice and oppressive intentions. The Respondents&#039; directorship was reinstated, and the register of members was rectified with a refund for canceled shares. Sri Ajeet Singh Puri was protected from exclusion from company management. The High Court upheld the Board&#039;s decision, emphasizing that oppressive conduct, even if legally permissible, warrants intervention. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Board&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:43:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=496934" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (2) TMI 629 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196145</link>
      <description>The Company Law Board ordered the cancellation of 1340 additional shares allotted oppressively to gain majority control, restoring the shareholding to its prior state. The appointment of the Appellants as directors was declared null and void due to improper notice and oppressive intentions. The Respondents&#039; directorship was reinstated, and the register of members was rectified with a refund for canceled shares. Sri Ajeet Singh Puri was protected from exclusion from company management. The High Court upheld the Board&#039;s decision, emphasizing that oppressive conduct, even if legally permissible, warrants intervention. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Board&#039;s order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196145</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>