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
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
further submitted: The action of the State is illegal and is oppressive. The entire letter of 6th March, 2002 refers only to the breach ... Board of Directors consisting of Government nominees is highly oppressive and in breach of their fiduciary duties. Whatever may the agreements between the shareholders, directors
fact that the
plaintiffs had already filed a petition for oppression and mismanagement
FAO (OS) 9/2015 Page 2 of 63
before the Company ... pending between the parties
before the Company Law Board with regard to oppression and
mismanagement would overlap the disputes sought to be raised
this petition under Sections 397 / 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 alleging oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the company.
2. The facts ... sons as directors, the 2nd respondent has acted in a manner oppressive to the petitioners.
4. The 2nd respondent has filed this instant application
Companies Act. 1956 ("the Act") alleging case of the oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of M/s. Chandra & Sons Private Limited ... group of shareholders for their benefit and to the detriment of oppressed shareholders as an act of oppression.
10. The petitioners have challenged the appointment
conducting the
affairs of the company by majority Directors in a manner oppressive
to minority and prejudicial to interest of the company and public
interest ... reliefs prayed in the company
petition are on hollow allegations of oppressive and conduct of
majority and mismanagement of company and it is nothing
2020) ("Appellants Petition"), alleging oppression and
mismanagement by the Promoters.
13. Respondents No. 1 to 5, in response to conversion notice, sent ... judgement above
recognises the in rem nature of an action for oppression and mismanagement.
44. The Respondent further emphasised the plea of waiver
becomes
clear that the matter complained of relates to the instances of
oppression and mismanagement of the affairs of first Respondent
Company. The subject matter ... measuring 7 acres is owned by Respondent No.1.
(ii) Instances of Oppression and mismanagement:
The Petitioners in the Company Petition have complained that
becomes
clear that the matter complained of relates to the instances of
oppression and mismanagement of the affairs of first Respondent
Company. The subject matter ... measuring 7 acres is owned by Respondent No.1.
(ii) Instances of Oppression and mismanagement:
The Petitioners in the Company Petition have complained that
