Oppression and mismanagement - member - When the Respondent No.1 ...

Case Laws Companies Law

June 4, 2019

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 founding Directors of the Company is admitted, it cannot be contended that he ceased to be a “member” upon reduction of his share capital and that too when the transfer of shareholding is alleged to be clandestine and product of fabrication and forgery

View Source

← Previous Next →

Oppression and mismanagement - member - When the Respondent No.1 ...

Case Laws Companies Law

June 4, 2019

You may also like:

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...

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...

The NCLAT upheld the NCLT's decision to refuse waiver u/ss 244(1)(a) and (b) of the Companies Act 2013 to the Appellants, who held only 5.83% shareholding, to file an...

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...

Corporate dispute involving allegations of oppression and mismanagement by equal shareholders. Key points: Oppression implies lack of probity or equity, intention behind...

Oppression and mismanagement - Determination of minimum shareholding for filing complain / petition against the company - The ‘onus’, to establish ‘Membership’ is on the...

The petition alleges oppression and mismanagement by the company's majority shareholders against the petitioners, who were removed as directors through an Extraordinary...

Interpretation of Section 220 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) regarding the constitution of the Disciplinary Committee. The key points are: The Disciplinary...

Oppression and mismanagement - reduction in shareholding - illegal transfer and allotment of shares - The NCLAT observed that, the appellants did not fully comply with...

Oppression and mismanagement - removal of minority directors - the second respondent, though holding 70 per cent. of shareholding, cannot act arbitrary against 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...

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

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...

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

Quick Updates: