https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375783 Shareholder oppression and mismanagement proceedings were held maintainable where the petitioners held the requisite shareholding on filing and the authorisations in favour of the lead petitioner constituted effective consent; the objection based on section 399 and alleged defective authorisation failed. An agreement to change management, together with later resolutions, appointments and share allotments, was held invalid because it lacked demonstrated shareholder and competent-authority approval and was unsupported by valid corporate meetings or lawful continuance of the concerned directors; the arrangement was not binding on the company or its shareholders. en-us Fri, 14 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 May 2019 11:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375783 Shareholder oppression and mismanagement proceedings were held maintainable where the petitioners held the requisite shareholding on filing and the authorisations in favour of the lead petitioner constituted effective consent; the objection based on section 399 and alleged defective authorisation failed. An agreement to change management, together with later resolutions, appointments and share allotments, was held invalid because it lacked demonstrated shareholder and competent-authority approval and was unsupported by valid corporate meetings or lawful continuance of the concerned directors; the arrangement was not binding on the company or its shareholders. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 14 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=375783