https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360170 In oppression and mismanagement proceedings, allegations that company properties were sold below value failed because the registered sale deed consideration was treated as the relevant benchmark and the comparison sales were found unreliable. A challenge based on section 274(1)(g) of the Companies Act, 1956 also failed, as that provision was treated as disqualifying a person from becoming a director in another public company, not as removing existing directors where compliance records were shown. The appointment of the second respondent as director and managing director was treated as valid and, under the articles, she was competent to execute property sales for the company's real estate business. No oppression or mismanagement was established. en-us Fri, 29 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 May 2018 14:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360170 In oppression and mismanagement proceedings, allegations that company properties were sold below value failed because the registered sale deed consideration was treated as the relevant benchmark and the comparison sales were found unreliable. A challenge based on section 274(1)(g) of the Companies Act, 1956 also failed, as that provision was treated as disqualifying a person from becoming a director in another public company, not as removing existing directors where compliance records were shown. The appointment of the second respondent as director and managing director was treated as valid and, under the articles, she was competent to execute property sales for the company's real estate business. No oppression or mismanagement was established. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 29 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360170