passing the impugned order without first arriving at a finding of oppression and mismanagement as claimed by the petitioner and thus assuming jurisdiction under ... come to the conclusion or give a finding that there is an oppression of the Respondent no.1 to 3 group of shareholders or there
contract and in the context of the non-exclusive jurisdiction clause, oppressive and vexatious unless the GOP could show strong reasons as to why parallel ... prima facie finding that the proceedings in the English Courts would be oppressive and vexatious, in our view, those findings, recorded at the stage
otherwise for a fraudulent or unlawful purpose, or in a manner oppressive to any of its members, or that the company was formed ... carrying on business for fraudulent or unlawful purpose or in a manner oppressive to any of its members in a. praesentis. It is therefore contended
Bombay Environmental Action Group, A ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 17 October
hereinafter referred to as the said Act), inter alia, alleging oppression and mismanagement in the company being Company Petition No. 7 of 2002. Thereafter some
herein and amounts to an act of mis-management and of oppression of the respondent No. 1 and therefore, respondent No. 1 was entitled ... prejudicing Company's interest nor did it have any semblance of oppression.
According to Mr. Thakur it has already come on record that half
Board. He has alleged in his petition that there is an oppression of his group of shareholders by acts of majority of shareholders and there
section 397 of the said Act, which provides that in cases of oppression, any member of the company can make an application to the Company
case merely on the ground of the issue of process would be oppressive. No person should be tried without a prima facie case. The view
purchase the shares of some of its members while granting relief against oppression, the company would part with its funds which would jeopardise the security
