Oppression and mismanagement - Merely because the ...

Case Laws Companies Law

June 5, 2021

Oppression and mismanagement - Merely because the Petitioner/Applicant is a majority shareholder in the Respondent No. 1, it is not entitled or authorised to file the captioned Application relating to contractual rights of the Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 4. There is no shareholder right of the Petitioner/Applicant involved in relation of the use of the Premises by the Respondent No. 1 in contractual arrangement with the Respondent No. 1 - Tri

View Source

← Previous Next →

Oppression and mismanagement - Merely because the ...

Case Laws Companies Law

June 5, 2021

You may also like:

Oppression and mismanagement - removal of the Petitioner from the Directorship - the instant Company Petition is maintainable U/s.241 of the Companies Act, 2013, and the...

Oppression and Mismanagement - minority shareholders - There was no alternative except liquidation or revival of company through other modes including sale of assets to...

Oppression and Mismanagement - bogus transactions - siphoning of funds - The allegation is an isolated incident and in order to invoke provisions of Oppression and...

There are certain oppression and mismanagement. The relationship between the Majority Shareholders & Minority Shareholders are strained. Hence, there is a need for...

Oppression and mismanagement - appellant has no inherent right to continue as Managing Director/Director in the 1st respondent unless he is able to carry the majority...

Allegation of oppression and mismanagement - The decision of the majority would prevail in the interest of the Company and its shareholders per se. Therefore, he cannot...

Writ appeal against writ petition entertained by the Ld. Single Judge - private parties - mismanagement and oppression of majority shareholders - Material on record...

Oppression and Mismanagement - The Appellants are Shareholders of the Respondent No. 1 Company and are family members of the other Shareholders. They are concerned with...

Oppression and mismanagement - It is admitted fact that the major portion of the equity shares (2/3rd) are held by the 1st and 3rd petitioners and the 2nd Respondent...

Oppression and mismanagement - misappropriation of funds - as such no irregularities were found in convening an Extra-Ordinary General Meeting which was requisitioned at...

A shareholder holding only 0.001% shares cannot be permitted to hold the company to ransom where 99% of the shareholders have accepted the scheme and the majority of the...

Oppression and mismanagement - member - When the Respondent No.1 being a shareholder with 25% shareholding at the time of incorporation and also being one of the...

Reduction of share capital - Even though the public shareholders/non promotor shareholders had objected to the reduction of share capital in the EGH but the majority...

Oppression and Mismanagement - Allegations of financial mismanagement and irregularities by the promoters/directors - The High court acknowledged that despite the...

Refusal to appoint an arbitrator and refer the dispute to the arbitrator - The dispute is with respect to the Share Subscription and Shareholders Agreement which is...

Quick Updates: