each of the company. This was alleged to be an act of
oppression on the part of Ramanujam who was managing the company. Prayer ... Board took the view that Ramanujam had committed an act of
oppression by not only not informing him about issue of further share
capital
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
short 'the company') were being conducted in the manner oppressive to the petitioner and prejudicial to the public interest; that ... burdensome and wrongful. There is total lack of confidence arising from the oppressive manner of working. There is total lack of probity and fair dealing
Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of M/s Vijay Dairy & Farm Products Private ... relation to the implementation of the settlement deed cannot constitute acts of oppression or mismanagement in the Company's affairs and the remedy
duties by the Puri group, which is not only an act of oppression in terms of Section 397 , but also prejudicial to the interest ... absence of any case made out for or a finding recorded of, oppression or mismanagement in the conduct of the affairs of the company
Private Limited ("the Company") are being conducted in a manner oppressive to the petitioner and prejudicial to the interests of the Company ... prosecute the second and third respondents.
2. The main acts of oppression and mismanagement relate to non-issue of notices for the meetings of members
Companies Act, 1956 ("the Act") alleging serious acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the Company and seeking the following reliefs ... expiry of his term, which amounts to an act of oppression. His removal cannot be true in the light of the fact that the first
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
decision of the CLB and so such a proceeding is
oppressive in nature and cannot be allowed to proceed further. Referring to
the order ... granted "to avoid injustice". (iv)
If foreign proceedings are "oppressive or vexatious". such anti-suit
injunction can be granted
Central Government of India, second respondent herein, in order to prevent oppression and mismanagement, invoking the power conferred under Section 408 read with Sections ... referred to:
" Section 408 - Powers of Government to prevent oppression or mismanagement:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Central Government may appoint
