https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198975 The first petitioner was found not disqualified as a director under Section 274(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, and was allowed to continue as the managing director. The appointment of two employee directors and the second respondent as managing director during the extraordinary general meeting was deemed oppressive due to the family nature of the company. The court invalidated these appointments and provided options for resolving the deadlock in the board, including distribution of shares in a subsidiary or selling shares based on valuation. The case was disposed of with no costs, granting liberty to both parties to apply. en-us Thu, 16 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Feb 2018 10:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198975 The first petitioner was found not disqualified as a director under Section 274(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, and was allowed to continue as the managing director. The appointment of two employee directors and the second respondent as managing director during the extraordinary general meeting was deemed oppressive due to the family nature of the company. The court invalidated these appointments and provided options for resolving the deadlock in the board, including distribution of shares in a subsidiary or selling shares based on valuation. The case was disposed of with no costs, granting liberty to both parties to apply. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 16 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198975