https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781890 The appellate tribunal held that the respondent shareholder was not a "promoter" when the appellant company launched its March 2023 rights issue, as prior agreements had been terminated, control withdrawn, and the board had validly reclassified the respondent from promoter to public shareholder in November 2022. It ruled that reclassification of a promoter in an unlisted public company is legally permissible and that the appellant correctly rejected the respondent's rights application because its shares were not dematerialised, in compliance with Rule 9A. The tribunal set aside the NCLT's order cancelling the rights issue and directing refund of application money. The oppression and mismanagement petition remains pending before NCLT. en-us Thu, 20 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Nov 2025 07:36:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781890 The appellate tribunal held that the respondent shareholder was not a "promoter" when the appellant company launched its March 2023 rights issue, as prior agreements had been terminated, control withdrawn, and the board had validly reclassified the respondent from promoter to public shareholder in November 2022. It ruled that reclassification of a promoter in an unlisted public company is legally permissible and that the appellant correctly rejected the respondent's rights application because its shares were not dematerialised, in compliance with Rule 9A. The tribunal set aside the NCLT's order cancelling the rights issue and directing refund of application money. The oppression and mismanagement petition remains pending before NCLT. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 20 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781890