Sections 397 and 398 of the said Act alleging various acts and oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the company before the learned Company ... said order submitted that the very basis of the case of oppression filed by the petitioners before the Company Law Board is based
Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as `the Act') alleging oppression and mismanagement on the part of the Caparo group. The company was arrayed ... Directors as the respondents No. 3 to 6. Various acts of oppression and mismanagement were attributed to the Caparo group.
3. The matter culminated
nominees of the petitioner attended the meeting. In that meeting various resolutions oppressive to the petitioner were purportedly approved for getting the consent ... petition, the 1st and 2nd respondents have been acting in a manner oppressive to the petitioner and also have been guilty of mismanaging the affairs
under Section 397 / 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 complaining oppression on minority shareholder and mismanagement of Respondent No. 1 Company perpetrated by Respondent ... present petition has been filed as the petitioner is aggrieved by the oppression and mismanagement caused by the respondent
Companies Act, 1956 ("the Act") alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of M/s Sporting Pastime (India) Limited ... respondents 2 to 6 have been reportedly indulging in acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the Company and therefore invoked the jurisdiction
before the Principal Bench, Company Law Board (CLB) alleging certain acts of oppression and mismanagement by Mr. Vijay Kumar Jain, Chairman and Managing Director ... before the CLB alleging certain acts of oppression and mismanagement by Mr. Vijay Kumar Jain, Chairman & Managing Director of the company. The respondent
respondent No. 1 company. This issue of notice of termination is clearly oppressive to the petitioner as minority shareholders of Respondent No. 1 Company. Particular ... bearing the trade marks and logos of Kirloskar. The acts of oppression on the part of respondents must be viewed in the context of family
shares in the respondent 1 company was a victim of the oppressive conduct of the respondent demonstrated by the fact that the respondents ... money and not to seek redressal of the alleged grievance of oppression or mismanagement.
(w) In the letter dated 14th March, 1998, the appellant complained
shares in the company have filed this petition alleging various acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the company and have sought ... settled law that creation of a new majority is an act of oppression against the existing majority shareholders.
5. The learned counsel further submitted
alleging against the respondents, the following acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the Company:
• allotment of the rights shares to the respondent ... respondents, apart from being malafide, is a clear act of oppression on the part of the respondents. The powers to issue shares given
