Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2008 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (11) TMI 399 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYOppression and mismanagement - Held that:- The grievance of the "present Petitioners" alone can be enquired into to find out whether it would constitute "continuing oppression" qua them, albeit holding only 6.66 per cent of the shares of the 1st Respondent Company and no one else. No hesitation in concluding that no case regarding oppression of minority shareholders has been established by the present Petitioners. Assuming to hold to the contrary, it would still be inclined to hold that no tangible grounds are made out to conclude that it is just and equitable to wind up the Respondent No. 1 Company. For, on this finding as observed in the case of Jaladhar Chakraborty (1991 (10) TMI 249 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA), no further direction needs to be issued. However, insofar as the direction pressed by the present Petitioners against the majority shareholders to buy out the shares of the present Petitioners, already dealt with that aspect in the earlier part of this judgment. There is ample material on record that in spite of differences between the two groups, the Company has been performing very well and the financial position of the Company is very sound. The Company has made huge profits in the past and has grown by leaps and bounds. Even if the Court were to consider the issue of mismanagement of the Respondent No. 1 Company as has been found earlier, that even if all the acts complained of are taken into account as it is, singularly or together, no case is made out that it is just and equitable to wind up the Respondent Company. As already adverted to all the grounds complained of by the Petitioners which according to them constitute case of oppression and mismanagement. As aforesaid, even if the said acts constituted oppression or mismanagement, were not sufficient to hold that the Respondent Company be wound up on the ground that it is just and equitable to do so within the meaning of section 433(1)(f) of the Act. W.P. fails
|