this judgment would mean respondents 2, 3 and 4). Various acts of oppression and mismanagement allegedly committed by them have been detailed in the petition ... maintainability of the petition and denied that there was any act of oppression or mismanagement alleged against any of them.
5. At, this stage
analyzed the evidence to come to a conclusion there is oppression to exercise the jurisdiction under Sections 397/398, remanded the case back to this ... family company and an aggrieved shareholder can always complain of a oppression even if the removal is in accordance with law. A family company
years before which redemption could not be enforced was an oppressive term and would in law amount to "a clog on the equity ... plaintiff-mortgagor has a right "to seek avoidance" of this oppressive term at any time, and therefore, on this clog being lifted
carried out
during the August to September 2006, revealed that mismanagement and
oppression have been carried out behind the back of Late Mr. Bipin Chandra ... Bhageria being the master mind, indulge into the acts of
mismanagement and oppression. The Target Company on 11.12.2002 without
authorization of board meeting allotted
herein - the minority shareholders of Respondent No. 1
Company alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement against
Respondent No. 2 and his family members in taking ... Companies Act, 1956 challenging the acts
of oppression and mismanagement of the present Respondents which came
to be dismissed in terms of impugned order dated
earlier
agreement and assurance given to them.
7- Complaining 'oppression' and 'mis-management' by the
majority group and contending that ... respondents
in furtherance to these agreement and conveyance amount to
'oppression' and 'mis-management'; there has been under-valuation
from the date on which the first
step/act of oppression or mismanagement was carried
out, particularly when such acts/steps from a series ... under Section 397 and 398
of the 1956 Act complaining against the oppression and mismanagement of
respondent No.2, while enlisting the various acts reflecting
document in favour of defendant mortgagee by the original-mortgagors were unconscionable, oppressive and unreasonable. The first term referred to the period of 99 years ... evidence on the record of the case reveals that the mortgagors were oppressed and were imposed upon by the mortgagee to enter into the original
resulted in
Appellant becoming a minority shareholder, which caused
oppression to her and therefore, she has filed CP No. 09/2016 to
seek redressal ... therefore was it constitutes an act of oppression, as it
converted the shareholding of the Appellant from 28 to 8.64% and
made her a very
Respondents No. 2 to 4") alleging
several acts of oppression/ mismanagement, came to be allowed with
certain directions. The Appellants have assailed the impugned ... Respondents 2 to 4 not only amounted to fraud but also oppression of the
Petitioner and mismanagement of affairs of Company on the part
