https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439132 In a closely held private company, an allotment of further shares was not oppressive or illegal where the increase in authorised share capital was approved after notice, the offer was made equally to all existing shareholders, and each shareholder was given the opportunity to apply for the entitled shares, fewer shares, or additional shares. The Court treated the directors' conduct as subject to a higher fiduciary standard but held that incidental benefit to the majority does not by itself establish oppression if the power is exercised bona fide and for the company's benefit. On the facts, the challenge failed because the shareholders knew of the proposed increase and chose not to participate, rather than being excluded by discriminatory conduct. en-us Thu, 15 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Jun 2023 08:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439132 In a closely held private company, an allotment of further shares was not oppressive or illegal where the increase in authorised share capital was approved after notice, the offer was made equally to all existing shareholders, and each shareholder was given the opportunity to apply for the entitled shares, fewer shares, or additional shares. The Court treated the directors' conduct as subject to a higher fiduciary standard but held that incidental benefit to the majority does not by itself establish oppression if the power is exercised bona fide and for the company's benefit. On the facts, the challenge failed because the shareholders knew of the proposed increase and chose not to participate, rather than being excluded by discriminatory conduct. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 15 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439132