<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2019 (12) TMI 895 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390012</link>
    <description>In oppression and mismanagement proceedings, a continuous course of prejudicial conduct affecting shareholder and membership rights can attract relief under Sections 241 and 242, especially where corporate actions are procedurally defective. The text states that the removal of the Executive Chairman was invalid because it proceeded without prior notice, agenda disclosure, or recorded deliberation, and that the consequential removals were tainted for the same reason. It further states that conversion of a public company into a private company required compliance with Section 14 and Tribunal approval, and that reliance on the statutory definition alone was insufficient. The commentary also notes that unnecessary disparaging remarks based on extraneous material should be expunged.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Dec 2019 11:06:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=598010" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 895 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390012</link>
      <description>In oppression and mismanagement proceedings, a continuous course of prejudicial conduct affecting shareholder and membership rights can attract relief under Sections 241 and 242, especially where corporate actions are procedurally defective. The text states that the removal of the Executive Chairman was invalid because it proceeded without prior notice, agenda disclosure, or recorded deliberation, and that the consequential removals were tainted for the same reason. It further states that conversion of a public company into a private company required compliance with Section 14 and Tribunal approval, and that reliance on the statutory definition alone was insufficient. The commentary also notes that unnecessary disparaging remarks based on extraneous material should be expunged.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390012</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>