https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280612 The tribunal dismissed the petition, finding no evidence of oppression or mismanagement after the first petitioner became a member of the respondent company. The tribunal held that the cancellation of land allotment by APIIC and subsequent refund were in the best interest of the company. However, the tribunal directed the respondent company to appoint the second petitioner as a Director due to his experience and the first petitioner's significant shareholding. Interim orders were vacated, and related applications were dismissed with no order as to costs. en-us Tue, 31 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 May 2019 07:39:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280612 The tribunal dismissed the petition, finding no evidence of oppression or mismanagement after the first petitioner became a member of the respondent company. The tribunal held that the cancellation of land allotment by APIIC and subsequent refund were in the best interest of the company. However, the tribunal directed the respondent company to appoint the second petitioner as a Director due to his experience and the first petitioner's significant shareholding. Interim orders were vacated, and related applications were dismissed with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 31 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280612