https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422277 A petition under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 was maintainable because the first petitioner's substantial shareholding and the sworn petition on behalf of the second petitioner met the threshold objection. Removal of the petitioners from directorship was treated as compliant with Section 169, as special notice, notice of the EGM, and the surrounding record showed observance of the statutory procedure. The Tribunal further held that a challenge to removal alone does not establish oppression or prejudice under Sections 241 and 242, and that reinstatement is not an implied power under Section 242. No continuing oppressive conduct was proved, so no relief was granted. en-us Thu, 05 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 May 2022 08:46:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422277 A petition under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 was maintainable because the first petitioner's substantial shareholding and the sworn petition on behalf of the second petitioner met the threshold objection. Removal of the petitioners from directorship was treated as compliant with Section 169, as special notice, notice of the EGM, and the surrounding record showed observance of the statutory procedure. The Tribunal further held that a challenge to removal alone does not establish oppression or prejudice under Sections 241 and 242, and that reinstatement is not an implied power under Section 242. No continuing oppressive conduct was proved, so no relief was granted. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 05 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422277