they remain in
majority in the company by virtue of the majority. Except in unusual
circumstances, the majority group of shareholders, in my opinion, should ... group of shareholders to
sell his shares to the minority group of shareholders will not redress the
wrong done to the majority group of shareholders
others and not to the existing shareholders would not therefore necessarily mean oppression of the minority shareholders. The majority shareholders were not bound to accept ... their two-thirds shares, the majority control would have vested in one group. But the action
of the majority shareholders in issuing new shares
majority shareholders and the minority
shareholders would not be enough unless lack of confidence
springs from oppression of the minority by a majority ... outsiders and not
the existing shareholders did not necessarily amount to an
oppression of the minority shareholders. The majority
shareholders were not bound to accept
from taking any major decision or
policy decision relating to the
management and affairs of the Company
before the majority shareholding and
management control ... manner acting in derogation of the
petitioner's rights as majority
shareholders in the company and the
11
petitioner's right to control
hold the extraordinary general meeting as per the requisition by the majority shareholders is improper and it also found that grounds have been made ... majority right to elect their own directors on the board of SSPL. The Board at that time thought that the views of the majority shareholders
majority shareholders and the minority shareholders would not be enough unless the lack of confidence springs from oppression of a minority by a majority ... majority shareholders and the minority shareholders would not be enough unless the lack of confidence springs from oppression of a minority by a majority
majority shareholder or shareholders requiring a full purchase and making payment of price by deposit with the company for any shareholder or shareholders who have ... period of three years from the date of majority acquisition or majority shareholding. (8) Where the shares of minority shareholders have been acquired in pursuance
Companies Act, 2013 alleging prejudicial and
oppressional acts of the majority shareholders (Tata Groups).
3. There being a doubt as to whether the Appellants ... this
turned to insisting that it is the will of the majority shareholder i.e. the
'Tata Group' that should prevail. This became
Companies Act, 1956,
alleging mismanagement and oppression by the
majority shareholders of the first respondent
2
Company. Various reliefs, including reconstitution
of the Board ... relief and continuous course of oppressive conduct
on the part of majority shareholders was,
therefore, necessary to be proved. It was also
observed that
registered in India, or having a proprietor or a majority shareholder, partner or director, who is not a citizen of India
