https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438095 A dismissal of oppression and mismanagement proceedings as not maintainable was unsustainable where the pleaded grievances had not been examined on merits. The record showed continuing allegations affecting board participation, compliance with interim directions, and later corporate actions, so summary rejection was improper. The finding that the managing director and director had vacated office under section 167(1)(b), with consequential reliance on section 196(3), also could not stand because subsisting status quo and clarificatory orders had not been vacated or properly considered. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication, and the existing interim protective arrangement was directed to continue during rehearing. en-us Mon, 15 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 May 2023 21:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438095 A dismissal of oppression and mismanagement proceedings as not maintainable was unsustainable where the pleaded grievances had not been examined on merits. The record showed continuing allegations affecting board participation, compliance with interim directions, and later corporate actions, so summary rejection was improper. The finding that the managing director and director had vacated office under section 167(1)(b), with consequential reliance on section 196(3), also could not stand because subsisting status quo and clarificatory orders had not been vacated or properly considered. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication, and the existing interim protective arrangement was directed to continue during rehearing. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 15 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438095