https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460019 The court held that the appellants retained their status as shareholders in the companies as the arbitration awards, including interim awards, were not fully satisfied. Consequently, the appellants had locus standi to maintain applications under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging oppression and mismanagement. The court also found that the companies failed to adhere to statutory procedures for share transfer, impacting the appellants' rights. Furthermore, the principles of res judicata did not bar the appellants' claims as the issues and parties were distinct. en-us Mon, 15 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jan 2025 15:47:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460019 The court held that the appellants retained their status as shareholders in the companies as the arbitration awards, including interim awards, were not fully satisfied. Consequently, the appellants had locus standi to maintain applications under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging oppression and mismanagement. The court also found that the companies failed to adhere to statutory procedures for share transfer, impacting the appellants' rights. Furthermore, the principles of res judicata did not bar the appellants' claims as the issues and parties were distinct. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 15 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460019