Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. It is significant for the purpose of the case at hand that courts have held that past acts which have come to an end would not be taken for the purpose of invoking the court's jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Act--see Suresh Kumar Sanghi v. Supreme Motors Ltd. [1983] 54 Comp Cas 235 (Delhi) ; Motion Pictures Association, In re [1984] 55 Comp Cas 375 (Delhi); In Chander Krishan Gupta v. Pannalal Girdhari Lal Pvt. Ltd. [1984] 55 Comp Cas 702 (Delhi), the court held that stray illegal acts may not amount to acts which would constitute a ground for an action under Section 397 of the Act. It is settled by the Supreme Court decisions that isolated acts of the controlling shareholders cannot be used as a ground for taking action under Section 397 of the Act. The case-law would indicate that one of the conditions essential for seeking relief under Section 397 of the Act is that there should be continued oppression over a period of time. We say so, because it is settled law that isolated acts of oppression or stray illegal acts would not amount to oppression or mismanagement unless the stray illegal acts may have continuing or lasting consequences and in such cases the power may be invoked. The case law on the subject as to what would amount to oppression and mismanagement is rather in a nebulous state. But the Supreme Court has given very substantial guidelines for determining whether an act would amount to oppression within the meaning of Section 397 of the Act.