<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Minority shareholders&#039; bid for oppression case denied due to insufficient stake, director removal not grounds.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81701</link>
    <description>The NCLAT upheld the NCLT&#039;s decision to refuse waiver u/ss 244(1)(a) and (b) of the Companies Act 2013 to the Appellants, who held only 5.83% shareholding, to file an oppression and mismanagement case u/s 241. While the NCLAT can make a preliminary assessment to determine if the petition falls within Sections 241 and 244, it found no exceptional circumstances to bypass the minimum shareholding requirement. The Appellants&#039; primary grievance revolved around the removal of one Appellant as Director, which the Supreme Court has held cannot trigger oppression relief u/ss 241 and 242. The petition did not substantiate a genuine case of oppression and mismanagement, and the NCLT rightly refused the waiver based on its assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2024 08:15:37 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2024 08:15:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770602" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Minority shareholders&#039; bid for oppression case denied due to insufficient stake, director removal not grounds.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81701</link>
      <description>The NCLAT upheld the NCLT&#039;s decision to refuse waiver u/ss 244(1)(a) and (b) of the Companies Act 2013 to the Appellants, who held only 5.83% shareholding, to file an oppression and mismanagement case u/s 241. While the NCLAT can make a preliminary assessment to determine if the petition falls within Sections 241 and 244, it found no exceptional circumstances to bypass the minimum shareholding requirement. The Appellants&#039; primary grievance revolved around the removal of one Appellant as Director, which the Supreme Court has held cannot trigger oppression relief u/ss 241 and 242. The petition did not substantiate a genuine case of oppression and mismanagement, and the NCLT rightly refused the waiver based on its assessment.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2024 08:15:37 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=81701</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>