<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Equitable meaning of &quot;member&quot; in oppression and mismanagement petitions allows remedy despite absent register entry.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99494</link>
    <description>Sections 397, 398 and 399 were construed in an equitable and remedial manner, so the expression &quot;member&quot; was not confined to formal entry in the register of members under Section 41(2). The SC accepted that Section 2(27) provides a wider membership framework and that strict insistence on register entry would defeat protection against oppression and mismanagement. On the facts, the company had consistently acknowledged the respondent&#039;s proprietary stake through correspondence, conciliation material, his appointment as Managing Director, rebranding linked to his concern, and acceptance of his investment. Those circumstances justified treating him as a member for the limited purpose of invoking the statutory remedy, and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 08:32:10 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 08:32:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=900061" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Equitable meaning of &quot;member&quot; in oppression and mismanagement petitions allows remedy despite absent register entry.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99494</link>
      <description>Sections 397, 398 and 399 were construed in an equitable and remedial manner, so the expression &quot;member&quot; was not confined to formal entry in the register of members under Section 41(2). The SC accepted that Section 2(27) provides a wider membership framework and that strict insistence on register entry would defeat protection against oppression and mismanagement. On the facts, the company had consistently acknowledged the respondent&#039;s proprietary stake through correspondence, conciliation material, his appointment as Managing Director, rebranding linked to his concern, and acceptance of his investment. Those circumstances justified treating him as a member for the limited purpose of invoking the statutory remedy, and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 08:32:10 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99494</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>