Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
must be fair, just, and reasonable, and it cannot be arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable. In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the court recognized
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 65687 (3.87 seconds)Constitution of India
Constitution of India
India
Constitution of India
CONTITUENTASSEMBLY 00 of 1950
Published in Gazette 00
Section 397 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Companies Act, 1956
397. Application to [Tribunal] for relief in cases of oppression
(1) Any member of a company who complain that the affairs ... being conducted" (w.e.f. 1.1.1964).] in a manner oppressive to any member or members (including any one or more of themselves) may apply
Needle Industries (India) Ltd., & Ors vs Needle Industries Newey (India) ... on 7 May, 1981
person of its choice-Allotment to Indian shareholder-Whether
amounts to oppression.
`Directly or indirectly, concerned in the contract or
arrangement'-Effect of-Relationship ... concluded
that the affairs of NIIL were being conducted in a manner
oppressive, that is to say burdensome, harsh and wrongful to
the Holding Company
Section 1 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
managed in a manner prejudicial to the shareholders of the company or oppressive to any substantial portion of them or when such investigation is otherwise
Section 242 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
affairs have been or are being conducted in a manner prejudicial or oppressive to any member or members or prejudicial to public interest
Section 241 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Companies Act, 2013
241. Application to Tribunal for relief in cases of oppression, etc.—
(1) Any member of a company who complains that ... manner prejudicial to public interest or in a manner prejudicial or oppressive to him or any other member or members or in a manner prejudicial
Section 237 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
otherwise for a fraudulent or unlawful purpose, or in a manner oppressive of any of its members, or that the company was formed
Modi Entertainment Network & Anr vs W.S.G.Cricket Pte. Ltd on 21 January, 2003
English Court would, on the facts of the case, be
vexatious and oppressive. The respondent contested
the motion relying on the non-exclusive
jurisdiction clause ... action
initiated by the respondent in the English Court
was vexatious and oppressive; the Division Bench
without disturbing the said finding dismissed the
motion erroneously
Dale And Carrington Invt. P. Ltd. And ... vs P.K. Prathapan And Others on 13 September, 2004
each of the company. This was alleged to be an act of
oppression on the part of Ramanujam who was managing the company. Prayer ... Board took the view that Ramanujam had committed an act of
oppression by not only not informing him about issue of further share
capital