https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763036 A closely held family company was not treated as a quasi-partnership because there was no equality of shareholding, no binding management understanding, and no legal basis to rewrite the constitutional framework. The principal complaints founded on an alleged family settlement, historical share transfers and a rights issue were held time-barred and not revived as a continuing wrong, as the later record and inspection disputes did not convert the earlier events into a fresh cause of action. Even so, in the peculiar family-dispute setting, equitable relief was granted and the respondents were directed to buy out the petitioners' shares at fair value to be determined by an independent registered valuer. en-us Fri, 06 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Dec 2024 14:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763036 A closely held family company was not treated as a quasi-partnership because there was no equality of shareholding, no binding management understanding, and no legal basis to rewrite the constitutional framework. The principal complaints founded on an alleged family settlement, historical share transfers and a rights issue were held time-barred and not revived as a continuing wrong, as the later record and inspection disputes did not convert the earlier events into a fresh cause of action. Even so, in the peculiar family-dispute setting, equitable relief was granted and the respondents were directed to buy out the petitioners' shares at fair value to be determined by an independent registered valuer. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 06 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763036