https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356941 The appellate tribunal overturned the decision to remove the appellant from directorship and appoint the 1st respondent as Director-cum-Managing Director. It held that the original petition did not seek such relief and found no oppression or mismanagement by the 3rd respondent. The tribunal also ruled that the company, not the individual director, was liable to pay the overdrawn amount. It dismissed allegations of operation and mismanagement against the 2nd respondent, emphasizing these were internal management issues. Concerns were raised about the 1st respondent's competing business activities. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. en-us Tue, 13 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Mar 2018 10:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356941 The appellate tribunal overturned the decision to remove the appellant from directorship and appoint the 1st respondent as Director-cum-Managing Director. It held that the original petition did not seek such relief and found no oppression or mismanagement by the 3rd respondent. The tribunal also ruled that the company, not the individual director, was liable to pay the overdrawn amount. It dismissed allegations of operation and mismanagement against the 2nd respondent, emphasizing these were internal management issues. Concerns were raised about the 1st respondent's competing business activities. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 13 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356941