https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199179 The court dismissed the petitions under Section 397/398 of the Companies Act alleging oppression and mismanagement as the power of attorney holder lacked explicit authorization to file such petitions on behalf of the shareholders. Relying on precedents, the court emphasized that general clauses in a power of attorney do not automatically confer broad powers, stressing the necessity of specific authorization for legal actions. The judgment underscored the importance of strict interpretation and specific provisions within the power of attorney, leading to the dismissal of the petitions due to the absence of explicit authorization for filing them. en-us Thu, 24 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:33:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199179 The court dismissed the petitions under Section 397/398 of the Companies Act alleging oppression and mismanagement as the power of attorney holder lacked explicit authorization to file such petitions on behalf of the shareholders. Relying on precedents, the court emphasized that general clauses in a power of attorney do not automatically confer broad powers, stressing the necessity of specific authorization for legal actions. The judgment underscored the importance of strict interpretation and specific provisions within the power of attorney, leading to the dismissal of the petitions due to the absence of explicit authorization for filing them. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 24 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199179