https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353539 The statutory remedy for oppression and mismanagement was not displaced by the alleged arbitration agreement or award, because the private arrangement did not validly substitute the special jurisdiction under the Companies Act. The transfer of 14,96,000 shares was held invalid for want of reliable corporate authorisation and compliance with share-transfer requirements, so the shares were restored and respondent No. 2 was removed from the register for those shares. The later allotments of 3,50,000 and 4,00,000 shares were not wholly set aside; instead, the petitioners were given a proportionate opportunity to subscribe at the same rates, with the remaining allotments left undisturbed if not taken up. en-us Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Jan 2018 07:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353539 The statutory remedy for oppression and mismanagement was not displaced by the alleged arbitration agreement or award, because the private arrangement did not validly substitute the special jurisdiction under the Companies Act. The transfer of 14,96,000 shares was held invalid for want of reliable corporate authorisation and compliance with share-transfer requirements, so the shares were restored and respondent No. 2 was removed from the register for those shares. The later allotments of 3,50,000 and 4,00,000 shares were not wholly set aside; instead, the petitioners were given a proportionate opportunity to subscribe at the same rates, with the remaining allotments left undisturbed if not taken up. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353539