https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196728 Failure to prove service of notice for an extraordinary general meeting, coupled with transaction of unnotified business, rendered the meeting's decisions invalid; however, the additional share allotment was retained because it served the financially distressed company's interests. Article 10 restricted transfers to non-members while existing members were willing to buy and required notice to the company. Transfer to a shareholder was treated as permissible, and any procedural breach was not regarded as oppression because the transaction benefited the company. The petitioners' group was directed to exit for auditor-determined consideration based on the relevant balance sheet, payable by the respondents or company. en-us Thu, 15 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Dec 2017 10:50:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196728 Failure to prove service of notice for an extraordinary general meeting, coupled with transaction of unnotified business, rendered the meeting's decisions invalid; however, the additional share allotment was retained because it served the financially distressed company's interests. Article 10 restricted transfers to non-members while existing members were willing to buy and required notice to the company. Transfer to a shareholder was treated as permissible, and any procedural breach was not regarded as oppression because the transaction benefited the company. The petitioners' group was directed to exit for auditor-determined consideration based on the relevant balance sheet, payable by the respondents or company. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 15 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196728