<?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>2018 (8) TMI 1952 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287269</link>
    <description>Legal heirs of a deceased shareholder were held to have locus standi to maintain the company petition, because jurisdiction under the oppression and mismanagement provisions is equitable and maintainability is assessed on the position at filing; later developments did not defeat it. The Tribunal further found that the increase in authorised capital, fresh allotment of shares, and induction of additional directors formed a concerted course of conduct lacking probity, designed to exclude the estate&#039;s controlling interest and convert a dominant holding into a minority. It rejected objections based on limitation and acquiescence, held the acts oppressive, and granted consequential relief including rectification of the register, reconstitution of the board, and special audit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2020 09:56:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=609460" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 1952 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287269</link>
      <description>Legal heirs of a deceased shareholder were held to have locus standi to maintain the company petition, because jurisdiction under the oppression and mismanagement provisions is equitable and maintainability is assessed on the position at filing; later developments did not defeat it. The Tribunal further found that the increase in authorised capital, fresh allotment of shares, and induction of additional directors formed a concerted course of conduct lacking probity, designed to exclude the estate&#039;s controlling interest and convert a dominant holding into a minority. It rejected objections based on limitation and acquiescence, held the acts oppressive, and granted consequential relief including rectification of the register, reconstitution of the board, and special audit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287269</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>