1 - 10 of 1110 (1.10 seconds)
Gujarat High Court
Mohanlal Ganpatram vs Shri Sayaji Jubilee Cotton And ... on 18 February, 1964
Gujarat High Court
them. The
petitioner has alleged certain acts of oppression and mismanagement by
the respondents specificial in the affairs ... been conducted in a proper manner
to avoid oppression and mismanagement, the payments, if any, had to be
forfeited
Company Law Board
that the facts disclosed in those reports established oppression and mismanagement, the respondents 1 to 5 herein filed a petition ... respondents 6 to 20.
(i) The acts of oppression and mismanagement complained of by the respondents 1 to 5 herein
Madras High Court
company in the affairs
of which acts of oppression/mismanagement have been alleged is not a
party to the arbitration ... right to move
this Board in case of oppression/mismanagement, is vested in the
shareholders. Even though the counsel
Company Law Board
years. These litigations
broadly concern the complaints of mismanagement and oppression by a
group of persons which is deeply entrenched ... fully and exhaustively pronounced
on these complaints of mismanagement and oppression so far. The long
delay in disposal of these
Delhi High Court
right to move this Board in case of oppression/mismanagement, is
vested in the shareholders. Even though the counsel ... examine as to whether the allegations
of oppression/mismanagement contained therein can be adjudicated
without reference to the terms
Company Law Board
Bombay High Court
Bennet Coleman And Co. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 13
Bombay High Court
counsel for the appellants relied, as acts of
oppression and mismanagement, cannot, in our view, be held to be such ... granted to a
petitioner, even though facts relating to mismanagement, oppression,
misappropriation and improper conduct have not been pleaded
Calcutta High Court
have
been made out to find that there was oppression. Therefore, it held
that as per requisition dated October ... doubted that the board of
directors were mismanaging the affairs of the company and were misusing
their official capacity
Madras High Court
petitioner has alleged various acts of
oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the respondent No. 1
namely Rapti Supertronics ... another director was inducted on 12.9.1998. The oppression and
mismanagement by respondent No. 2 has resulted in a deadlock
Company Law Board
Get new documents for this query in your RSS feed reader -