https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280613 The National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, held the Company Petition maintainable only for the 1st petitioner from a specific date, while it was not maintainable for the 2nd petitioner. The appellants were allowed to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a fresh Company Petition under sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act 2013 if oppression and mismanagement occurred after they became shareholders. The continuation of the 2nd appellant as director was subject to a separate Company Appeal filed by the respondents challenging the impugned judgment. The Tribunal did not express an opinion on this issue, leaving it to be addressed in the separate Company Appeal. en-us Thu, 23 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 May 2019 07:39:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280613 The National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, held the Company Petition maintainable only for the 1st petitioner from a specific date, while it was not maintainable for the 2nd petitioner. The appellants were allowed to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a fresh Company Petition under sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act 2013 if oppression and mismanagement occurred after they became shareholders. The continuation of the 2nd appellant as director was subject to a separate Company Appeal filed by the respondents challenging the impugned judgment. The Tribunal did not express an opinion on this issue, leaving it to be addressed in the separate Company Appeal. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 23 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280613