upon supporting affidavits from persons having personal knowledge of the allegations of oppression, mismanagement and misconduct. In this case, there are no supporting affidavits ... further shares with an oblique motive is a grave act of oppression. In Clemens v. Clemens Bro. (1976 2 AER 268), it has been held
Companies Act, 1956, filed on August 18, 1992, alleging oppression and mismanagement against respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in the affairs of respondent ... acts complained of are factually correct and if so, do they constitute oppression and/or mismanagement. Also whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief
Companies Act, 1956 ("the Act"), alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the company have been filed, is a public ... such they have no locus standi to file this petition alleging oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the company. This petition has been filed
members of the other two families, it is a great act of oppression. In the case of a partnership in which all the partners have ... affairs of the company are being carried on in a manner oppressive to the members and that the complaining members should establish that the company
Voras Exclusive Tools Private Limited, in the affairs of which acts of oppression and mismanagement have been alleged under Section 397 / 398 of the Companies ... death of P.J. Vora, the second respondent started indulging in oppressive conduct against the petitioners, lacking in probity and fairness and against the spirit
Section 403 of the Companies Act, 1956 ("the Act"), alleging oppression in the affairs of the company. Along with the petition, he also ... invoking the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board in the case of oppression is a statutory right which cannot be taken out by the provisions
filed under Sections 397 / 398 of the Companies Act (the Act) alleging oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of M/s Polymer Paper Limited ... provisions of the MOUs but also is a grave act of oppression. In Ebrahimi v. West Bourne Galleries Limited
purchase the shares held by the petitioner companies who complain of oppression.
5. On merits of the case, he submitted as follows: In none ... could be granted only if the allegations of oppression and mismanagement are established. Referring to Maharani Lalita Rajya Lakshmi v. Indian Motor
position without the consent of the partners is a grave act of oppression, meriting winding up of the company on just equitable grounds. Therefore ... certain shareholders to the exclusion of others, is an act of oppression and that when proper notices are not issued for a Board Meeting, provisions
filed this petition under Sections 397 / 398 of the Companies Act alleging oppression and mismanagement.
2. Before I proceed further, it is necessary to note ... petitioners have the right to move a petition under Section 397 alleging oppression. In Ebrahimi v. West Bourne Galleries
