<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1985 (11) TMI 236 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199526</link>
    <description>A petition under sections 397 and 398 was treated as maintainable under section 399 where the requisite members&#039; consent was factually established, including consent given through a guardian for minor members. The court also treated the alleged oppression and mismanagement as continuing conduct, so limitation was not applied to defeat the petition, especially where communication of the impugned resolution had not been proved. Allegations of clandestine share allotment, alteration of board control, and prejudice to the petitioner&#039;s group disclosed triable issues requiring evidence, and the matter could not be rejected summarily. The dismissal was set aside and the company petition restored for decision on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2018 09:46:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511322" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (11) TMI 236 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199526</link>
      <description>A petition under sections 397 and 398 was treated as maintainable under section 399 where the requisite members&#039; consent was factually established, including consent given through a guardian for minor members. The court also treated the alleged oppression and mismanagement as continuing conduct, so limitation was not applied to defeat the petition, especially where communication of the impugned resolution had not been proved. Allegations of clandestine share allotment, alteration of board control, and prejudice to the petitioner&#039;s group disclosed triable issues requiring evidence, and the matter could not be rejected summarily. The dismissal was set aside and the company petition restored for decision on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199526</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>