https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199211 The court determined that the company was a family company, allowing for the application of partnership principles. It held that there were no parallel proceedings, as the issues raised in the present petition under sections 397/398 were distinct from those in the Patna suit. The complaints of oppression and mismanagement were found valid, with evidence supporting acts such as manipulation of board meetings and denial of inspection of books. Consequently, the petitioners were granted reliefs including nullification of board meetings, reinstatement as directors, division of business and properties, and appointment of a Chairman for oversight. en-us Fri, 13 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Feb 2018 18:22:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199211 The court determined that the company was a family company, allowing for the application of partnership principles. It held that there were no parallel proceedings, as the issues raised in the present petition under sections 397/398 were distinct from those in the Patna suit. The complaints of oppression and mismanagement were found valid, with evidence supporting acts such as manipulation of board meetings and denial of inspection of books. Consequently, the petitioners were granted reliefs including nullification of board meetings, reinstatement as directors, division of business and properties, and appointment of a Chairman for oversight. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 13 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199211