https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773075 The Bombay HC partially allowed an appeal challenging a CLB order in an oppression and mismanagement case. The court upheld CLB's finding that the petitioner became a 1/3rd shareholder only on 28.01.1983 based on share certificates, not earlier as claimed. The HC affirmed CLB's interpretation of pre-emption rights under Article 38 of the Articles of Association. However, the court set aside CLB's erroneous holding that winding up becomes automatic upon establishing oppression, and crucially overturned CLB's direction granting the petitioner right to nominate a non-functional director on the company board, finding it legally unsustainable without statutory or contractual basis. en-us Mon, 16 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Jun 2025 09:04:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773075 The Bombay HC partially allowed an appeal challenging a CLB order in an oppression and mismanagement case. The court upheld CLB's finding that the petitioner became a 1/3rd shareholder only on 28.01.1983 based on share certificates, not earlier as claimed. The HC affirmed CLB's interpretation of pre-emption rights under Article 38 of the Articles of Association. However, the court set aside CLB's erroneous holding that winding up becomes automatic upon establishing oppression, and crucially overturned CLB's direction granting the petitioner right to nominate a non-functional director on the company board, finding it legally unsustainable without statutory or contractual basis. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 16 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773075