https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459052 The Bombay HC dismissed an appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, challenging a CLB order rejecting oppression and mismanagement claims. The court held that appellate jurisdiction is limited to questions of law, not fact re-appreciation. The HC found the respondent company was not a quasi-partnership between two family groups, as shareholding patterns showed significant disparity. The petitioner's resignation following a Section 284 notice was not deemed oppressive. Crucially, the court applied the "clean hands" doctrine, ruling that the petitioner's conduct involving asset diversion and related party transactions without board approval breached statutory duties, disqualifying him from seeking equitable relief under Sections 397-398. en-us Fri, 27 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Nov 2024 18:34:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459052 The Bombay HC dismissed an appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, challenging a CLB order rejecting oppression and mismanagement claims. The court held that appellate jurisdiction is limited to questions of law, not fact re-appreciation. The HC found the respondent company was not a quasi-partnership between two family groups, as shareholding patterns showed significant disparity. The petitioner's resignation following a Section 284 notice was not deemed oppressive. Crucially, the court applied the "clean hands" doctrine, ruling that the petitioner's conduct involving asset diversion and related party transactions without board approval breached statutory duties, disqualifying him from seeking equitable relief under Sections 397-398. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 27 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459052