Section 89 Non-Disclosure Insufficient to Prove Oppression or Mismanagement: NCLAT Delhi
CA Sandeep Kanoi
14 Jan 2026
1,524 Views
1 comment
Print
Warning: Undefined variable $show_all_cats in /home/taxguru/public_html/wp-content/themes/tgv5/single.php on line 63
Company Law |
Warning: Undefined variable $show_all_types in /home/taxguru/public_html/wp-content/themes/tgv5/single.php on line 71
Judiciary
Warning: Undefined variable $show_all_cats in /home/taxguru/public_html/wp-content/themes/tgv5/single.php on line 63
Company Law |
Warning: Undefined variable $show_all_types in /home/taxguru/public_html/wp-content/themes/tgv5/single.php on line 71
Judiciary
Warning: Undefined variable $all_cats in /home/taxguru/public_html/wp-content/themes/tgv5/single.php on line 80
Case Law Details
Case Name : Satyanarayan Gupta Appellant Vs Shivangan Realestate Pvt Ltd & Ors (NCLAT Delhi)
Related Assessment Year :
Warning: Undefined array key 3 in /home/taxguru/public_html/wp-content/themes/tgv5/single.php on line 95
Warning: Undefined array key 3 in /home/taxguru/public_html/wp-content/themes/tgv5/single.php on line 95
Courts :
NCLAT
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Satyanarayan Gupta Appellant Vs Shivangan Realestate Pvt Ltd & Ors (NCLAT Delhi)
The appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal challenged an order of the NCLT, Jaipur Bench, which had dismissed a company petition at the threshold. The appellant claimed beneficial ownership of 5,000 equity shares constituting 50% of the company’s share capital and alleged wrongful acquisition by another respondent, relying on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 01.01.2022. The petition sought recognition of beneficial ownership and rectification of statut
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.



Comments are closed.