Oppression and Mismanagement Before the NCLT: Where Minority Shareholder Remedies Stand Today

By Bhaskar Subramanian, Partner, S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors and Chandrayee Roy, Associate, S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors

Published 24 October 2026 · Law stated as on 22 October 2026 · Informational content, not legal advice: see our disclaimer

A minority shareholder who feels frozen out of a company has one principal forum left: the National Company Law Tribunal, under Sections 241 to 246 of the Companies Act, 2013. The route is narrower than it looks, the threshold to even file is often contested before the merits are reached, and recent rulings have reshaped both ends of the process, who may walk through the door and what happens to a shareholder's claim once the company itself goes through insolvency.

Why this remedy still matters

Every close company in India eventually runs into the same problem: two or three families or founders who started as equals drift apart, one side gains working control of the board, and the other finds itself shut out of information, dividends, or decisions that affect the value of its stake. Listed companies have SEBI's takeover and insider trading rules, and a liquid market lets a disgruntled shareholder simply sell. A private or closely held company offers neither exit. The minority shareholder's only real lever, short of persuading the majority to buy them out on fair terms, is a petition to the National Company Law Tribunal under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013.

The remedy is old in substance, the 1956 Act carried an equivalent under Sections 397 and 398, and the case law built around those sections (S.P. Jain v. Kalinga Tubes Ltd., Needle Industries (India) Ltd. v. Needle Industries Newey (India) Holding Ltd.) still supplies the working vocabulary: oppression must be a continuing course of conduct that is burdensome, harsh and wrongful, and must affect the complainant in their capacity as a member rather than as an employee, creditor or director. What has changed since 2013 is the forum (the NCLT replaced the Company Law Board in 2016), the breadth of relief the Tribunal can grant, and, most recently, how the remedy interacts with a company that has gone through resolution under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

This piece sets out where the law stands as of October 2026: who can bring a petition, what has to be shown, what the Tribunal can order, and the points, mostly around the waiver jurisdiction and the survival of oppression claims through a resolution plan, that remain genuinely contested.

The statutory scheme: Sections 241 to 246

Chapter XVI of the Companies Act, 2013 is headed "Prevention of Oppression and Mismanagement" and runs from Section 241 to Section 246. Section 241 lets a member apply to the Tribunal on two distinct grounds: that the company's affairs are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest or prejudicial or oppressive to the applicant or to any member or members, or that a material change in the management or control of the company is likely to be prejudicial to the company's interests. The second limb, material change leading to prejudice, is wider than the oppression limb and does not require a showing of continuing harsh conduct; a change in control that threatens to run the company into the ground can suffice.

Section 241(2) separately empowers the Central Government to apply where the company's affairs are being conducted against public interest, a route distinct from a shareholder petition and rarely used outside regulatory enforcement.

Section 242 is the relief-granting provision. Once the Tribunal is satisfied that the company's affairs have been or are being conducted in the manner described in Section 241, and that winding up would unfairly prejudice the applicants while the facts otherwise justify an order, it may make any order it thinks fit to end the matters complained of. Section 242(2) lists illustrative heads of relief, regulation of future conduct, purchase of shares by other members or the company, reduction of share capital, termination or modification of agreements with directors or managers, removal of the managing director or any director, recovery of undue gains, and more. Section 242(4) allows interim orders pending final disposal, and Section 242(3) treats any alteration to the memorandum or articles made under such an order as having the same force as if made by the members themselves, overriding the ordinary amendment procedure.

Section 244 sets the standing threshold (addressed in the next section), Section 245 provides a separate class action mechanism for a wider set of grievances, and Section 246 applies Sections 337 to 341 (relating to the liability of delinquent officers) to proceedings under this Chapter. Read together, the scheme gives the Tribunal civil-court-like powers over the internal affairs of a company, exercised through a summary, affidavit-based procedure rather than a full trial.

Who may file: the Section 244 threshold and its waiver

Section 244(1) restricts standing. For a company with share capital, a petition under Section 241 may be brought by not less than one hundred members, or one-tenth of the total number of members, whichever is less, or by any member or members holding not less than one-tenth of the issued share capital, provided the applicants have paid all calls and other sums due on their shares. For a company without share capital, the threshold is one-fifth of the total number of members. The proviso to Section 244(1) lets the Tribunal, on application, waive all or any of these requirements.

The waiver jurisdiction has produced most of the recent litigation, because it is the gate through which a petitioner with a small stake must pass before the oppression allegations are even looked at. The governing framework still traces back to the Supreme Court's 2021 ruling in the Tata Sons dispute (Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. and connected appeals, decided 26 March 2021), where the Court had to decide, among other things, whether Cyrus Investments and an associated Shapoorji Pallonji entity met the one-tenth threshold once preference shares were counted into Tata Sons' total issued capital. The Court held that the calculation must be made on the actual issued share capital, including preference shares, which reduced the petitioners' effective holding and became central to the standing dispute; it also held that the Tribunal, at the waiver stage, should not get drawn into deciding the merits of the underlying oppression allegations, since that would pre-empt the very inquiry Section 241 contemplates.

NCLAT decisions since then have applied that framework unevenly, which is itself revealing. In Adesh Gupta v. Liberty Shoes Ltd. (NCLAT, reported around September 2024), the appellate tribunal upheld an NCLT refusal to waive the threshold for petitioners holding 5.83 percent, holding that the waiver jurisdiction is an exception rather than a rule and that the materials on record did not disclose exceptional circumstances; the underlying grievance, removal of Adesh Gupta as CEO and executive director by an 83.14 percent majority, was treated as a matter decided by majority vote rather than oppression. By contrast, in Lokesh Kumar Bansal v. Adhunik Food Products (NCLAT, 2025), the Tribunal set aside a dismissal and held that a petition is maintainable under Section 241 if any one of the three statutory conditions in Section 244 is satisfied, reading the threshold disjunctively rather than insisting the petitioner clear every limb. And in the NCLAT's dismissal of IMPPA's appeal against an NCLT Mumbai order (the NCLT order dated 8 July 2026 had granted a Section 244(1)(b) waiver to a group of film producers' association members), the appellate tribunal held that the association, as the party resisting the waiver, carried the burden of showing the numbers did not support maintainability, and declined to let IMPPA force a suo motu verification exercise on the Tribunal.

The practical upshot: a waiver is still treated as exceptional, fragmented minority holdings (where no natural grouping can reach the ten percent line without combining across unrelated shareholders) and a substantial economic interest that is diluted by a technicality, such as the Tata Sons preference-share calculation, are the kind of facts that have supported a waiver; a petitioner who simply falls short and offers no structural explanation is likely to be refused. Counsel bringing a petition for a client under the threshold should plead the waiver application with the same evidentiary care as the substantive oppression case, because tribunals are now treating the two as analytically separate but practically intertwined.

Who counts as a member: the register of members is not the last word

A separate, and more fundamental, standing question is who counts as a member at all. Section 2(55) of the 2013 Act defines a member to include, among others, every person whose name is entered in the register of members. Companies resisting a petition have long argued that an absent or incorrect register entry is fatal to standing, since Section 241 speaks of "any member".

The Supreme Court closed that argument, at least on its facts, in Dr. Bais Surgical and Medical Institute Pvt. Ltd. v. Dhananjay Pande (2026 INSC 447, decided 4 May 2026, Narasimha and Aradhe, JJ.). The respondent had paid for shares that were allotted in a lesser number than his payment justified, and the company argued he was not a member because his name did not appear correctly in the register maintained under Section 41 of the old 1956 Act (the proceedings had originated under Sections 397 and 398 of that Act before migrating). The Company Law Board rejected the objection and the Bombay High Court affirmed; the Supreme Court dismissed the company's appeals, holding that the absence of a formal register entry is not conclusive of membership status, which must instead be assessed against the substantive definition in Section 2(27) (the equivalent provision today being Section 2(55)) and the surrounding statutory and factual context, including how the company itself had treated the person. The Court ordered the deposited amount, with interest, released to the respondent.

The holding matters beyond its facts. Family companies and smaller private companies frequently have messy, decades-old registers, shares allotted informally, transfers never stamped or recorded, nominee arrangements never regularised. A company that wants to resist a Section 241 petition on a pure standing technicality now has a materially harder argument to make if the petitioner can show the company's own conduct, dividend payments, AGM notices, board minutes referring to the person as a shareholder, treated them as a member in substance. The Dr. Bais Surgical principle is likely to be pleaded routinely in the next wave of family-company disputes.

What counts as oppression: the continuing-conduct test

The substantive test for oppression predates the 2013 Act and has not been displaced. In S.P. Jain (also reported as Shanti Prasad Jain) v. Kalinga Tubes Ltd., AIR 1965 SC 1535, the Supreme Court held that oppressive conduct must be burdensome, harsh and wrongful, and must evince a lack of probity or fair dealing towards a member in respect of their proprietary rights as a shareholder; an isolated act, or a bona fide disagreement between directors, does not amount to oppression. In Needle Industries (India) Ltd. v. Needle Industries Newey (India) Holding Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 1298, the Court applied the same formulation to a rights issue priced well below market value and offered only to resident shareholders, holding that the test looks to a continuing course of conduct rather than a single transaction viewed in isolation, though a single act can found a petition if its effects persist and continue to prejudice the complainant.

Two practical consequences follow. First, a petitioner who complains of a single boardroom decision, a contract awarded to a related party, an allotment that diluted their stake, a salary increase to a managing director, needs to show either that the act is part of a pattern or that its prejudicial effect is ongoing; a transaction that has run its course and caused a one-time, quantifiable loss is more naturally a claim for damages or a derivative action than a Section 241 petition. Second, removal from a position of management is, on its own, usually not oppression. Tribunals applying the Liberty Shoes line of reasoning treat removal of a director or managing director by a lawful majority vote, following due process, as a matter the majority was entitled to decide, unless the removal is shown to be part of a broader scheme to strip the minority of information, dividends, or value. The distinction that recurs across the case law is between oppression of a shareholder qua shareholder (denial of dividends, exclusion from decisions affecting share value, diversion of corporate opportunity) and grievances that are really about an individual's loss of office, which belong, if anywhere, to employment or contract law.

A third thread runs through the more recent NCLAT decisions: a company's business justification for a disputed transaction does not end the inquiry. In the VCare Technologies matter (NCLAT New Delhi, Company Appeal (AT) No. 280 of 2026, decided 25 September 2026), the appellants, a former promoter and an early investor holding roughly 11.28 percent between them, had challenged asset transfers, a reduced stake in a subsidiary, the treatment of an alleged debt, and a proposed share allotment that would have diluted them further. The NCLT had dismissed the petition and separately allowed an interlocutory application alleging perjury by the petitioners. The NCLAT set the dismissal aside, holding that calling a restructuring commercially necessary does not relieve the NCLT of the duty to examine the oppression allegations on the whole of the record, and remanded the matter with the status quo order restored and all merits left open. The decision is a reminder that commercial rationale is a factor in the oppression inquiry, not a trump card that avoids it.

Procedure: filing, interim relief and the pace of litigation

A Section 241 petition is filed before the NCLT bench having jurisdiction over the company's registered office, supported by affidavit evidence rather than oral examination in the first instance, consistent with the Tribunal's summary procedure under the NCLT Rules, 2016. Rule 11 of those Rules preserves the Tribunal's inherent power to pass orders necessary to meet the ends of justice, which is the usual route for ancillary procedural directions not expressly covered by the Rules.

Interim relief is available under Section 242(4) and is frequently the most consequential part of the litigation, because final disposal of an oppression petition routinely takes years once waiver objections, maintainability challenges and appeals are factored in, while the underlying harm, asset stripping, dilution, diversion of business, continues in the meantime. The Rukshmani Syntex dispute illustrates the pattern. Mehul Narayan Thakkar, holding 37.09 percent of a family company against an equal stake held by his brother and a negligible holding retained by their father, filed a petition under Sections 241, 242 and 246 alleging oppression by his brother and father and sought either restoration of joint management or a buyout of his shares at a fair value. The NCLT directed status quo on 27 March 2026 after the respondents themselves conceded to the request, and the NCLAT, on appeal, confirmed the status quo position on 18 August 2026 and directed the NCLT to appoint an independent valuer and obtain a valuation report expeditiously, leaving the underlying oppression allegations to be decided separately. The interim order effectively froze the company's affairs and set the buyout mechanism in motion well before any final finding on oppression.

Delay is a recognised problem. Section 422(1) of the Act sets a target of disposing of applications and petitions within three months of presentation, extendable for reasons recorded in writing, but Tribunal benches are heavily loaded with insolvency matters under the IBC, and oppression petitions, which are not time-bound in the way insolvency admissions are, tend to slip down the list. Repeated interlocutory applications, maintainability objections and appeals to the NCLAT, and from there special leave petitions to the Supreme Court, routinely stretch disposal well beyond that statutory target, a pattern the NCLAT itself has acknowledged in some of its own orders.

Remedies the Tribunal can grant

Section 242(2) gives an illustrative, non-exhaustive list of relief. The regulation of the conduct of the company's affairs in future; the purchase of shares or interests of any members by other members or by the company, with a consequential reduction of share capital where the company is the purchaser; restrictions on the transfer or allotment of shares; termination, setting aside or modification of any agreement between the company and the managing director, any other director or manager; termination, setting aside or modification of any agreement between the company and any person other than those mentioned, with that person's consent; setting aside any transfer, delivery of goods, payment, execution or other act relating to property made or done within three months before the application, if it would amount to a fraudulent preference were the company being wound up; removal of the managing director, manager or any director; recovery of undue gains made by any managing director, manager or director; and appointment of such directors as the Tribunal thinks fit to effectively run the company.

The share-purchase remedy is the one most often sought in practice, because it gives the minority an exit at a fair valuation without unwinding the company, and it is the relief the Rukshmani Syntex and comparable disputes have moved towards through interim valuation directions. The Tribunal has also shown a willingness to use less conventional remedies to break a deadlock. In the Nayan Shah and Cheers Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd. dispute, an appeal was listed before the NCLAT's Principal Bench through much of 2026, though the publicly available record at the time of writing confirms only that the appeal exists and was part-heard; the precise terms of any final order on the merits are not yet independently verifiable and should be checked against the NCLAT's own order before being relied upon.

Section 242(3) is a useful but under-used provision: where the Tribunal's order requires an alteration to the company's memorandum or articles, the alteration takes effect as though made by the members themselves under the ordinary statutory procedure, and the company cannot thereafter alter the article so changed without the Tribunal's leave, except where the order itself permits it. This lets the Tribunal build structural protections, enhanced quorum requirements, affirmative voting rights for the minority, information rights, directly into the company's constitution rather than relying on the parties' continued cooperation.

Winding up as a fallback, and why it rarely succeeds on its own

Before 2013, a shareholder frustrated by majority conduct could petition for winding up on the just and equitable ground under Section 433(f) of the 1956 Act, and the oppression remedy was in part designed to give an alternative to the blunt instrument of liquidation. That structure survives today. Section 271(1)(e) of the 2013 Act lets the Tribunal wind up a company if it is of the opinion that it is just and equitable to do so, a ground distinct from the fraud and public-interest grounds in Section 271(1)(c) and from the separate insolvency route under the IBC (the 2013 Act's "inability to pay debts" ground was removed by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2018, since that scenario is now addressed under the Code).

Section 273(2) builds in a significant check: on a petition for winding up on the just and equitable ground, the Tribunal may refuse to make an order if it is of the opinion that some other remedy is available to the petitioners and that they are acting unreasonably in seeking winding up instead of pursuing that other remedy. In practice, since an oppression petition under Section 241 is almost always available to a shareholder who can meet, or get a waiver of, the Section 244 threshold, courts treat winding up as a remedy of last resort, reserved for cases of genuine deadlock or loss of substratum where buying out the minority or regulating future conduct will not resolve the underlying breakdown. A petitioner should expect to be asked, pointedly, why a Section 241 petition with a buyout remedy would not serve the same purpose with far less damage to the company's ongoing business and its employees and creditors.

The IBC overlap: what survives a resolution plan

The most significant doctrinal development of the last two years is not within Chapter XVI at all, it is the collision between oppression and mismanagement claims and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code's resolution process. Once a company enters corporate insolvency resolution under the IBC and a resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31, Section 32A of the Code insulates the corporate debtor and, in substantial part, the successful resolution applicant from prior liabilities, and the plan typically extinguishes the pre-resolution equity capital entirely, including the shareholding of public and minority shareholders, without consideration, on what courts now routinely call the clean slate principle.

The Sintex Industries dispute tested that principle directly against a shareholder's oppression-adjacent claim. The NCLT, Ahmedabad had approved a resolution plan submitted jointly by Reliance Industries Limited and Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Limited in February 2023, a plan that cancelled the company's entire pre-existing equity share capital without consideration. A former shareholder, Titus Babu, later sought rectification of the register of members under Section 59 of the Companies Act and compensation reported at figures ranging from roughly Rs 82.3 crore to Rs 110 crore across different news accounts, arguing his shareholding and associated rights should be restored or compensated. The NCLT, Ahmedabad rejected the application on 6 March 2026, holding that the approved resolution plan binds all stakeholders, including shareholders, and cannot be reopened through a Section 59 rectification application. The NCLAT, New Delhi (Company Appeal (AT) No. 168 of 2026) dismissed the appeal, by most accounts in late August 2026, holding that Section 59 cannot be used to revive shareholding extinguished under an approved resolution plan or to claim substantive monetary compensation for that extinguishment, relying on Section 238 of the IBC (which gives the Code overriding effect over other laws to the extent of any inconsistency) and Section 32A, and concluding that the appellant retained no surviving membership or enforceable right in the company independent of the extinguished shareholding.

The practical message for minority shareholders and their counsel is blunt: an oppression or mismanagement grievance against a company's management is not a claim that survives the company's own insolvency resolution. If the company is heading towards or already inside a CIRP, a Section 241 petition against the existing board becomes largely academic once a resolution plan is approved, because the plan, once it takes effect, resets the equity capital structure regardless of what the pre-resolution board did to the minority before insolvency began. Shareholders who suspect oppressive conduct in a company showing signs of financial distress have a narrow window, before an insolvency application is admitted, in which pursuing Section 241 relief (particularly an urgent interim order freezing assets or share transfers) retains practical value. Once CIRP commences, the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC in any event suspends most proceedings against the corporate debtor, and the resolution process takes over from company law remedies almost entirely.

A separate jurisdictional point, often conflated with the clean-slate principle but analytically distinct, concerns the limits of NCLT and NCLAT jurisdiction itself. In Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka ((2020) 13 SCC 308, also reported as 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1542, decided 3 December 2019), the Supreme Court held that the NCLT and NCLAT, as creatures of a special statute, lack jurisdiction over disputes that arise under a different regulatory statute, there, a mining lease governed by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, even where the dispute happens to touch an asset of a company under CIRP; such disputes must go to a court exercising writ or ordinary civil jurisdiction. The Court did, however, confirm that the NCLT and NCLAT have jurisdiction to examine questions of fraud under Sections 65 and 69 of the IBC. The decision is cited routinely for the general proposition that the NCLT's jurisdiction, wide as it is under both the Companies Act and the IBC, is not unlimited, and oppression petitioners sometimes invoke it to argue that a particular grievance belongs in a civil court instead; whether Embassy Property's reasoning extends cleanly into the Chapter XVI context, as opposed to the IBC-versus-sectoral-regulator context it actually decided, is not something the reported case law has yet settled, and petitioners should not assume it does without closer analysis of their specific facts.

Building the petition: evidence, pleading and a practical checklist

A petition that survives a maintainability challenge and goes on to succeed on the merits is built on specific, documented, continuing conduct, not generalised distrust between family members or business partners. A practitioner preparing to file, or preparing to defend, should work through the following in sequence, treating each as a drafting and evidentiary checkpoint rather than a box to tick.

Standing comes first: confirm the petitioner's shareholding or membership figure against the company's actual issued capital (not merely the figure the petitioner believes they hold), check whether preference shares or any other class affects the calculation along the lines the Tata Sons dispute turned on, and if the threshold is not met, prepare the waiver application with its own supporting narrative, fragmentation of the minority, a disproportionate economic stake, or some other structural reason a waiver is warranted, filed either together with or ahead of the substantive petition.

Membership status comes next where the register is incomplete or disputed: gather dividend payment records, AGM and EGM notices sent to the petitioner, board minutes referring to them as a shareholder, share certificates, and any correspondence in which the company itself treated the person as a member, the kind of record that proved decisive in the Dr. Bais Surgical line of reasoning.

The conduct itself needs to be pleaded and evidenced as a course of dealing, not a single event: a timeline of board decisions, allotments, related-party transactions, and financial statements across at least two to three years is usually necessary to show the burdensome-and-continuing character the Kalinga Tubes and Needle Industries tests require; a single transaction should be pleaded with an explicit case for why its prejudicial effect continues into the present rather than having been completed and exhausted.

Urgency should be assessed honestly: if there is a real risk of asset stripping, further dilutive allotments, or diversion of business to a related entity while the petition is pending, an interim application under Section 242(4) should be filed alongside the main petition, supported by specific, time-stamped evidence of the threatened act, rather than a generic apprehension, since tribunals have shown they will grant meaningful interim protection (as in the Rukshmani Syntex status quo order) where the risk is concretely shown.

Finally, the company's financial trajectory needs to be checked before filing: if the company is already in financial distress or facing admission of an insolvency application, a Section 241 petition should be filed, if at all, on a fast and urgent basis, since the clean-slate principle means the window for meaningful relief closes once a resolution plan is approved, and in some cases a creditor's Section 7 or Section 9 application under the IBC may overtake the oppression proceeding entirely regardless of the petitioner's preference.

Where the law remains unsettled

Several questions recur in practice without a settled appellate answer. The outer boundary of the Section 244 waiver jurisdiction is one: NCLAT benches have gone both ways depending on whether the petitioner's minority position is structurally fragmented or simply small, and the Supreme Court's Tata Sons ruling, while authoritative on the preference-share calculation point, did not purport to lay down a bright-line test for every future waiver application, leaving tribunals to decide each case on its own facts with inconsistent results.

Whether Embassy Property Developments' reasoning on the limits of NCLT jurisdiction carries over into ordinary Chapter XVI oppression proceedings, as opposed to the IBC-and-sectoral-regulator conflict it actually addressed, has not been squarely tested in a reported oppression case, and parties should be cautious about over-reading it in that context.

The precise reach of the clean-slate principle against claims that are framed not as a challenge to the resolution plan itself but as a claim for compensation for pre-CIRP oppressive conduct that occurred before insolvency was even contemplated is also not fully resolved; the Sintex Industries appellate ruling addressed a Section 59 rectification route specifically, and it remains to be seen whether a differently framed claim, for instance one seeking to hold erstwhile directors personally liable for oppressive conduct that predates insolvency, rather than seeking to revive extinguished shareholding itself, would be treated the same way.

And the degree to which a company's claimed commercial justification for a disputed transaction should be weighed, as opposed to merely considered and then set aside, at the interim or admission stage, continues to produce divergent outcomes between benches, with the VCare Technologies ruling leaning towards fuller scrutiny on the complete record and other decisions showing more deference to board-level commercial judgment where no clear badge of bad faith is shown.

The oppression and mismanagement remedy remains, in form, much as it was under the 1956 Act: a minority shareholder's claim that the majority has dealt with them in a manner that is burdensome, harsh and wrongful, tested against a continuing course of conduct rather than an isolated grievance. What has shifted is the procedural architecture around it, a standing threshold that now generates almost as much litigation as the substantive claim, interim relief that has become the practical centre of gravity in many disputes because final hearings take years, and a resolution-plan regime under the IBC that can extinguish the underlying shareholding, and with it much of the practical value of the remedy, well before a Tribunal ever reaches the merits.

For a minority shareholder weighing whether to file, the threshold questions are no longer only about the conduct complained of. They now include whether the Section 244 numbers can be met or waived, whether the company's financial position makes an insolvency filing a live risk that could overtake the petition, and whether an interim order is realistically available to stop the harm from compounding while the case proceeds. Getting those questions right at the outset, before the petition is drafted, matters as much as the strength of the underlying grievance.

Frequently Asked Questions

References & Further Reading

The provisions, rulings and official documents below were relied on for this article, which states the law as on 22 October 2026. The position can change with amendments, rules and later decisions, so check the current text before acting on any of it.

1. Companies Act, 2013, Sections 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 271(1)(e), 273(2), 422(1)
2. Companies Act, 1956, Sections 397, 398 and 433(f) (predecessor provisions)
3. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Sections 14, 31, 32A, 238
4. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2018 (removal of inability-to-pay-debts ground from Section 271)
5. NCLT Rules, 2016, Rule 11
6. S.P. Jain (Shanti Prasad Jain) v. Kalinga Tubes Ltd., AIR 1965 SC 1535
7. Needle Industries (India) Ltd. v. Needle Industries Newey (India) Holding Ltd., AIR 1981 SC 1298
8. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. and connected appeals, Supreme Court, decided 26 March 2021 (Civil Appeal Nos. 440-441 of 2020 and connected matters)
9. Dr. Bais Surgical and Medical Institute Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Dhananjay Pande, 2026 INSC 447, decided 4 May 2026
10. Adesh Gupta and Ors. v. Liberty Shoes Ltd. and Ors., NCLAT, Comp. App. (AT) No. 238 of 2023, reported around September 2024
11. Lokesh Kumar Bansal v. Adhunik Food Products, NCLAT, 2025
12. NCLAT order dismissing IMPPA's appeal against the NCLT Mumbai Section 244(1)(b) waiver order dated 8 July 2026
13. VCare Technologies Pvt. Ltd. oppression dispute, NCLAT New Delhi, Company Appeal (AT) No. 280 of 2026, decided 25 September 2026
14. Rukshmani Syntex Pvt. Ltd. (Thakkar family) dispute, NCLAT New Delhi, decided 18 August 2026, on appeal from NCLT Mumbai
15. Titus Babu v. Sintex Industries Ltd. resolution plan dispute, NCLT Ahmedabad order dated 6 March 2026 and NCLAT New Delhi, Company Appeal (AT) No. 168 of 2026, decided around late August 2026
16. Embassy Property Developments Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (2020) 13 SCC 308 / 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1542, decided 3 December 2019
17. Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (referenced only for contrast with company law remedies; not applicable to this topic)

Related reading on this site

• Nclt oppression mismanagement guide
• Company winding up voluntary compulsory guide
• Striking off revival restoration company guide
• Nclat imppa section 244 waiver oppression mismanagement
• Vcare technologies nclat oppression restructuring not excused by commercial necessity
• Nclat rukshmani syntex thakkar family status quo buyback
• Titus babu sintex industries nclat clean slate shareholder claim
• Bais surgical dhananjay pande member oppression mismanagement
• Nclat nayan shah cheers interactive swiss challenge oppression remedy