https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375556 Termination of a joint development arrangement and the resulting board resolutions were examined for oppression or mismanagement under company law. The Tribunal found that notices had been issued, nominee directors were informed, quorum was maintained, and the board acted through a duly constituted meeting in accordance with the articles and the governing framework. It held that a board resolution does not become oppressive merely because it is said to be legally vulnerable; the conduct must be oppressive or prejudicial in the statutory sense. The observations on the disputed agreements were limited to deciding the company law issues and would not affect pending arbitration. No case for interference was made out. en-us Tue, 08 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375556 Termination of a joint development arrangement and the resulting board resolutions were examined for oppression or mismanagement under company law. The Tribunal found that notices had been issued, nominee directors were informed, quorum was maintained, and the board acted through a duly constituted meeting in accordance with the articles and the governing framework. It held that a board resolution does not become oppressive merely because it is said to be legally vulnerable; the conduct must be oppressive or prejudicial in the statutory sense. The observations on the disputed agreements were limited to deciding the company law issues and would not affect pending arbitration. No case for interference was made out. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 08 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375556