https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313194 The court invalidated the EOGM held on 24.3.1999 due to lack of proper notice. Despite this, the allotment of 2,000 shares to the third respondent was upheld as it served the company's interest. The transfer of shares was deemed compliant with Article 10(a) and not oppressive. The petitioners were directed to exit the company, receiving fair consideration for their shares, valued by statutory auditors as of 31.3.2000. The petition was disposed of without costs. en-us Thu, 15 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Mar 2024 15:44:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313194 The court invalidated the EOGM held on 24.3.1999 due to lack of proper notice. Despite this, the allotment of 2,000 shares to the third respondent was upheld as it served the company's interest. The transfer of shares was deemed compliant with Article 10(a) and not oppressive. The petitioners were directed to exit the company, receiving fair consideration for their shares, valued by statutory auditors as of 31.3.2000. The petition was disposed of without costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 15 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313194