trust and thereafter only
on 08.01.2015 this petition is filed alleging
oppression and mismanagement. It is stated that no
action was taken by the petitioner ... Therefore,
petitioner allege that it is continuous act of
oppression and mismanagement. Although no
period of limitation is provided several instances
have been stated
shares. The appellant
states that there are series of acts and oppression of mismanagement which
were/are prejudicial to the interest of the appellant ... barred by limitation, petitioner is not entitled to seek
reliefs for oppression and mismanagement.
53. In view of the above discussion, petition is dismissed. There
Respondent No.1 - Original Petitioner on 5th October, 2015
making grievances of oppression and mismanagement against the
Respondents in the Company Petition. Present Appeal ... Company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the ongoing
acts and conducts of oppression and mismanagement of the erring
Respondents', gave consent to the Petitioner
unusually long. Section 34 of the Act of 1996 would be unduly
oppressive, if it is held that the provisions of Section
community, to suppress fraud
and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. It
seeks to bury all acts of the past which have
when he borrowed the moneys on the
mortgage. Was the mortgagor oppressed? Was he imposed upon? If
he was, then he may be entitled
that grant of decree may not be used as an instrument
of oppression to have an unfair advantage to the parties. {See : K.
Nanjappa (Dead
prevent its machinery from being used as a means of vexation and oppression in the process of litigation. ... The categories of conduct rendering a claim
time, the
plea of fraud cannot be utilized as an engine of oppression by dishonest and
fraudulent litigants but in the case on hand
time, the
plea of fraud cannot be utilized as an engine of oppression by dishonest and
fraudulent litigants but in the case on hand
