https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368152 Allegations of oppression and mismanagement based on an alleged forged increase in share capital, share allotment and resignation documents failed because the corporate records were supported by the appellant's admitted signatures. Annual returns, balance sheets, board resolution, EOGM records and the resignation document were treated as contemporaneous evidence, and the appellants did not pursue forensic examination despite opportunity. Applying Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the record supported the conclusion that the appellant was aware of and party to the corporate actions until resignation. The burden of proving oppression and mismanagement was therefore not discharged, and dismissal of the company petition was upheld. en-us Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Oct 2018 08:21:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368152 Allegations of oppression and mismanagement based on an alleged forged increase in share capital, share allotment and resignation documents failed because the corporate records were supported by the appellant's admitted signatures. Annual returns, balance sheets, board resolution, EOGM records and the resignation document were treated as contemporaneous evidence, and the appellants did not pursue forensic examination despite opportunity. Applying Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the record supported the conclusion that the appellant was aware of and party to the corporate actions until resignation. The burden of proving oppression and mismanagement was therefore not discharged, and dismissal of the company petition was upheld. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368152