https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293670 A share purchase agreement governed the parties' rights, and the company's sellers were found to have no continuing participatory role after its execution. The unilateral termination notice was invalid because the asserted grievances did not match the agreement's stipulated grounds, and no contractual default was shown. As the dispute arose from contractual rights and obligations under an agreement containing a binding arbitration clause, it was held arbitrable and required referral under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The pleaded complaints of exclusion from management, property transfer, and financial disputes did not establish oppression or mismanagement under section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013. en-us Wed, 21 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Feb 2021 09:40:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293670 A share purchase agreement governed the parties' rights, and the company's sellers were found to have no continuing participatory role after its execution. The unilateral termination notice was invalid because the asserted grievances did not match the agreement's stipulated grounds, and no contractual default was shown. As the dispute arose from contractual rights and obligations under an agreement containing a binding arbitration clause, it was held arbitrable and required referral under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The pleaded complaints of exclusion from management, property transfer, and financial disputes did not establish oppression or mismanagement under section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 21 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293670