NCLT
March 10, 2026

Oppression & Mismanagement Under Sections 241–244 of the Companies Act, 2013

Corporate disputes between shareholders — especially between promoters and minority investors, or between co-founders who have grown apart — are among the most disruptive events in a company’s life. When the majority uses its control to systematically harm the interests of minority members, or when management conducts the company’s affairs in a manner that is prejudicial to the company itself, the law does not leave the aggrieved party without a remedy.

Chapter XVI of the Companies Act, 2013 — comprising Sections 241 to 246 — provides a robust statutory framework for addressing Oppression and Mismanagement in companies. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is empowered to pass wide-ranging orders that can change the management, regulate affairs, order buyouts, or even recommend winding up — to bring an end to the oppressive conduct.

This blog is a complete, practitioner-level guide for directors, promoters, and shareholders. It covers what constitutes oppression and mismanagement in law, who can file a petition, the eligibility thresholds, the powers of NCLT, the relief available, consequences for directors, and landmark Supreme Court judgements — including the landmark Tata Sons v. Cyrus Investments case that redefined the contours of this law.

Who Should Read This?

Minority shareholders suspecting oppression | Promoters facing mismanagement allegations | Directors of family-owned companies with governance disputes | Investors and PE funds with protective rights | Company Secretaries advising on shareholder disputes | Management facing NCLT petitions as respondents

1. Legislative Background — From CLB to NCLT

The remedy for oppression and mismanagement is not new to Indian company law. Its predecessor provisions existed in Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, which were adjudicated by the Company Law Board (CLB). When the Companies Act, 2013 came into force, these provisions were recast into Sections 241–246, and jurisdiction was transferred from the CLB to the newly constituted National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

The 2013 Act brought two significant improvements over the 1956 regime: first, it expanded the concept from mere ‘oppression’ to a broader formulation of conduct ‘prejudicial or oppressive’, recognising that harm to a member’s interests need not always be coloured by malice or intent; and second, it granted NCLT wider remedial powers — including the ability to make orders against non-members of the company such as third parties to whom assets have been siphoned.

2. Understanding the Key Terms — Oppression vs Mismanagement

2A. What Is ‘Oppression’?

The Companies Act, 2013 does not define ‘oppression’. Courts and tribunals have developed the meaning through case law over decades. The foundational formulation comes from Elder v. Elder & Watson Ltd. (1952) (Scotland), later adopted in Indian jurisprudence: oppression involves conduct that is burdensome, harsh and wrongful, not merely conduct that is technically legal but produces unfair outcomes.

In the Indian context, oppression typically manifests through conduct such as:

Exclusion of a member from management in violation of the understanding on which the company was formed
Fraudulent allotment of shares to dilute a minority’s shareholding
Withholding of dividends while majority members extract value through inflated salaries
Conversion of a public company to private without consent of minority shareholders
Conducting Board or general meetings in violation of the Articles to pass resolutions injurious to minority interests
Removal of a director in breach of a shareholders’ agreement or an understanding between the founding members

Critical Legal Principle:

Oppression is not a one-time act — it must be a continuing course of conduct. The Supreme Court in Shanti Prasad Jain v. Kalinga Tubes Ltd. (1965) held that there must be a continuous course of conduct creating a burden on the shareholders which is harsh, wrongful and causes them to suffer continuously. A single act of injustice, however severe, may not constitute oppression.

2B. What Is ‘Mismanagement’?

Mismanagement refers to the conduct of the company’s affairs in a manner that is prejudicial to the interests of the company itself, or prejudicial to public interest, or likely to result in the company’s affairs being conducted in such a manner — on account of a material change in management or control. Unlike oppression (which is about harm to members), mismanagement encompasses harm to the company as an entity.

Common instances of mismanagement include:

Diversion of company funds to related parties without Board approval
Systematic non-disclosure of material information to minority shareholders or the Board
Unauthorised disposal of key company assets
Failure to maintain proper accounts or hold statutory meetings
Appointment of incompetent or conflicted persons to key management positions
Actions that are ultra vires the MOA/AOA or the Companies Act, 2013
Material change in the management or control of the company prejudicial to company interests

3. Section 241 — The Right to Apply to NCLT

Section 241 is the gateway provision — it establishes the statutory right of members and the Central Government to approach the NCLT seeking relief against oppression and mismanagement. It creates two separate heads under which a petition can be filed:

Ground	What Must Be Shown
Section 241(1)(a) — Oppression / Prejudice	The affairs of the company have been or are being conducted in a manner (i) prejudicial to public interest, or (ii) prejudicial or oppressive to any member or members, or (iii) prejudicial to the interests of the company itself
Section 241(1)(b) — Material Change	A material change has taken place in the management or control of the company (e.g., change in Board composition, share ownership, etc.) and by reason of such change, it is likely that the company’s affairs will be conducted in a manner prejudicial to its interests or its members or any class of members
Section 241(2) — Central Government	The Central Government, if of the opinion that the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest, may itself apply to NCLT for an order under this Chapter

3A. What Qualifies as a ‘Material Change’ Under Section 241(1)(b)?

A ‘material change’ under Section 241(1)(b) is one that is not brought about by or in the interests of any creditors, debenture holders, or any class of shareholders. It can be caused by:

Alteration in the Board of Directors (e.g., removal of a promoter-director)
Change in management (e.g., appointment of a new MD/CEO with conflicting interests)
Change in ownership of the company’s shares (e.g., through a private placement diluting minority stakes)
Change in membership (for companies without share capital — Section 8 companies, clubs, etc.)
Any other manner of change in control not in the interests of existing members

It is important to note that Section 241(1)(b) is anticipatory — it does not require that harm has already occurred. It is sufficient to demonstrate that on account of the material change, it is likely that the affairs will be conducted in a prejudicial manner. This is a lower threshold than Section 241(1)(a), which requires existing or ongoing prejudicial conduct.

4. Section 244 — Who Can File? The Eligibility Threshold

Section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013 prescribes the minimum number of members who must join a petition for it to be maintainable before NCLT. This is one of the most litigated provisions in the O&M framework — many petitions have been dismissed at the threshold stage itself.

Type of Company	Minimum Eligibility Under Section 244(1)
Company Having Share Capital	Not less than 100 members OR not less than one-tenth (1/10th) of the total number of members, WHICHEVER IS LESS OR Any member(s) holding not less than one-tenth (1/10th) of the issued share capital of the company (provided such member(s) have paid all calls and other sums due on their shares)
Company NOT Having Share Capital (e.g., Section 8 Companies)	Not less than one-fifth (1/5th) of the total number of members

4A. The Waiver Power — NCLT’s Discretion Under Section 244 Proviso

The proviso to Section 244(1) is one of the most significant provisions in the O&M framework: it empowers NCLT to waive all or any of the requirements prescribed above, thereby allowing a member who does not meet the numerical threshold to still maintain a petition. This discretionary power has been the subject of considerable judicial debate.

In the landmark Tata Sons v. Cyrus Investments Private Ltd. case, the NCLAT exercised this discretion liberally, granting a waiver despite the Mistry Group not meeting the shareholding threshold, on the basis of ‘exceptional circumstances’ — given the enormous monetary value of the Mistry Group’s interest in Tata Sons and the high public importance of the dispute. The Supreme Court later examined this power and held that:

Supreme Court on Section 244 Waiver (Tata Sons Case):

(i) The power to waive under Section 244 proviso is judicial in nature and cannot be exercised capriciously or arbitrarily. (ii) The NCLT must pass a speaking and reasoned order granting the waiver, issued after notice to proposed respondents. (iii) At the waiver stage, the Tribunal must objectively assess whether the proposed petition genuinely pertains to oppression and mismanagement, or is frivolous. (iv) The Tribunal should consider the membership status, nature of allegations, importance to the applicant, and importance to the company.

4B. Joint Application by Members

Section 244(2) provides that one or more members may make an application on behalf of all eligible members, provided they obtain the written consent of the remaining members who join in the petition. This allows even a single member — with the support of others meeting the aggregate threshold — to lead the petition before NCLT.

5. Section 242 — Powers of the NCLT: What Orders Can It Pass?

Section 242 is the enforcement engine of the O&M framework. Once the NCLT is satisfied that the grounds under Section 241 are made out, it has extremely wide powers to pass any order it considers just and equitable. The statute provides that the Tribunal may pass orders for any or all of the following:

#	Order NCLT May Pass Under Section 242
1	Regulation of the conduct of affairs of the company in future
2	Purchase of shares or interests of any member by other members or by the company itself, with a consequential reduction in share capital
3	Restriction on the transfer or allotment of the shares of the company
4	Termination, setting aside, or modification of any agreement between the company and the Managing Director or any other director or manager — on such terms as the NCLT may deem just and equitable
5	Termination, setting aside, or modification of any agreement between the company and any other person — but no such person shall be entitled to compensation for loss of office on account of such termination
6	Setting aside of any transfer, delivery of goods, payment, execution, or other act relating to property made or done within 3 months before the date of application which is found to be unfair
7	Recovery of undue gains made by a Managing Director or any other director or manager, and payment thereof to the company
8	Appointment of such number of persons as directors who shall act on such terms and conditions as the Tribunal may specify
9	Imposition of costs as the Tribunal may deem fit
10	Any other matter for which, in the opinion of the Tribunal, it is just and equitable that provision should be made

5A. Interim Orders Under Section 242(4)

NCLT is also empowered to make interim orders — i.e., temporary protective orders during the pendency of the petition — under Section 242(4). These are extremely valuable as they can prevent the oppressing majority from taking further damaging actions while the full petition is pending. Interim orders can restrict share transfers, freeze asset sales, or temporarily restrain the enforcement of Board resolutions.

However, NCLT must exercise this power carefully. As clarified by the Supreme Court in Tata Sons, an interim order under Section 242(4) can only be made if the applicant demonstrates a prima facie case that the affairs are not being conducted in accordance with law or the Articles — and it cannot be passed before the petition under Section 241 is first admitted.

5B. Critical Limitation — No Power of Reinstatement

What NCLT CANNOT Do Under Sections 241–242:

The Supreme Court in Tata Sons v. Cyrus Investments definitively held that Sections 241 and 242 do NOT confer on NCLT the power to reinstate a removed director to his position. The Tribunal can regulate the company’s future affairs, order a buyout, or even recommend winding up — but it cannot undo a removal and order a person back onto the Board as a continuing director.

Further, NCLT can only examine past or ongoing conduct — it cannot adjudicate upon apprehension of future misconduct arising from the company’s Articles.

6. Section 243 — Consequence for Directors Removed by NCLT Order

Section 243 contains an important deterrent provision. Where the NCLT terminates, sets aside, or modifies the appointment of a Managing Director, Whole-Time Director, or any director by its order under Section 242, that person:

Shall not be appointed or re-appointed as a Managing Director or Whole-Time Director or director of that company for a period of
FIVE YEARS from the date of the NCLT’s order
Shall not be entitled to claim any compensation for the loss of such office

This is a significant consequence. A director removed by an NCLT order under Section 242 is not merely removed from the current position — they are barred from being reappointed in any capacity (MD, WTD, or regular director) in that company for five years. This makes NCLT proceedings a high-stakes matter for directors who are respondents.

7. Landmark Judgements Every Director Must Know

⚖ Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Supreme Court of India, 2021)

Facts: Following his removal as Non-Executive Chairman of Tata Sons and as director from Tata Group companies, companies controlled by Cyrus Mistry filed a petition under Sections 241, 242 and 243 alleging oppression and mismanagement. The NCLT dismissed the petition. NCLAT reversed the NCLT and reinstated Mistry as Chairman — a drastic order that shocked the corporate world.

Held: The Supreme Court restored the NCLT order. Key holdings: (1) Sections 241–242 do not give NCLT power to reinstate a removed director. (2) Removal of a director, even if done unfairly, does not per se constitute oppression — it must be shown to be part of a larger design to oppress members. (3) Mere lack of confidence between majority and minority is not sufficient ground. (4) The NCLAT had dramatically over-stepped in its remedial order. A defining case on the limits of NCLT’s powers.

⚖ Shanti Prasad Jain v. Kalinga Tubes Ltd. (Supreme Court of India, 1965)

Facts: Minority shareholders of Kalinga Tubes filed a petition alleging oppression arising from various acts of the majority, including exclusion from management.

Held: The Supreme Court laid down the foundational test for oppression in India: there must be a continuous course of conduct which is harsh, burdensome, and wrongful. A single act of injustice, however severe, does not constitute oppression. Mismanagement must cause actual or likely damage to the company. This case remains the bedrock of O&M jurisprudence in India.

⚖ Aruna Oswal v. Pankaj Oswal & Ors. (Supreme Court of India, 2020)

Facts: Dispute arose in the Oswal family over a Section 241 petition filed by a member whose title to the shares was disputed in a pending civil court proceeding.

Held: The Supreme Court held that a shareholder whose title to shares is disputed and subject to a civil court’s status quo order cannot maintain a petition under Section 241, as they are not eligible to satisfy the threshold under Section 244. This underscores that the fundamental prerequisite for any O&M petition is clear, undisputed membership status.

⚖ Somangsu Biswas v. The Calcutta Cricket & Football Club (NCLAT, New Delhi, 2025)

Facts: Past Presidents and existing members of the Calcutta Cricket & Football Club — a Section 8 company with no share capital — filed an O&M petition alleging mismanagement by the current management. The petition involved only 4 initial petitioners out of 800+ members (less than 5%).

Held: NCLAT clarified the standard for waiver of the Section 244 eligibility threshold: the NCLT may exercise its discretion to waive the requirement in genuine cases of oppression/mismanagement where repeated, unadjudicated allegations exist and the petitioners are bona fide members. However, the NCLT must pass a speaking and reasoned order for granting waiver after due notice to respondents, and must not exercise this power capriciously. This is the most recent landmark ruling on the waiver power as of 2025.

⚖ Dale & Carrington Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan (Supreme Court of India, 2005)

Facts: Minority shareholder alleged oppression arising from the issue of shares at a highly undervalued price which diluted the minority stake significantly.

Held: The Supreme Court held that inequitable allotment of shares — even if technically within the powers of directors — can constitute oppression if the purpose is to dilute a minority’s shareholding and exclude them from effective participation in the company’s management. This case is routinely cited in oppression petitions involving fraudulent share issuances.

8. Step-by-Step: Filing an O&M Petition Before NCLT

1. Assess Eligibility Under Section 244

Verify that you (and co-petitioners, if any) meet the numerical or shareholding threshold under Section 244(1). If you fall short, evaluate whether the facts justify applying for a waiver. Obtain written consent from co-petitioners in accordance with Section 244(2).

2. Document the Grounds of Oppression/Mismanagement

Compile all evidence of the oppressive or prejudicial conduct — Board resolutions, AGM minutes, financial statements, bank statements, share transfer records, correspondence, and any agreements or undertakings made between the founding members. Evidence of a continuing course of conduct is critical.

3. Engage Qualified Legal Counsel

O&M petitions before NCLT require an Advocate on Record or a qualified advocate experienced in NCLT practice. While a Company Secretary can assist with the compliance aspects and document preparation, advocacy before NCLT requires an enrolled advocate. S Choudhary & Co. works in association with experienced NCLT advocates.

4. Draft and File the Company Petition

The petition is filed in the prescribed form before the jurisdictionally competent NCLT Bench. The petition must clearly state the membership status, satisfaction of Section 244 threshold (or grounds for waiver), the specific acts of oppression or mismanagement, the prejudice caused, and the specific relief sought.

5. Application for Interim Relief (If Urgent)

If there is an immediate risk of further damage (e.g., an upcoming EGM to pass a prejudicial resolution, or a proposed asset sale), file an Interlocutory Application (IA) simultaneously for interim relief under Section 242(4) — such as a stay on the impugned resolution or restriction on share transfer.

6. Service of Notice on Respondents

NCLT will issue notice to the company and all respondents (typically the majority shareholders and directors complained against). Respondents have the right to file a counter-affidavit contesting the allegations.

7. Waiver Application (If Threshold Not Met)

If you do not meet the Section 244 threshold, simultaneously file a Miscellaneous Application seeking waiver of the eligibility conditions. NCLT will hear this as a preliminary issue before admitting the main petition.

8. Hearing and Final Order

After exchange of affidavits and documentary evidence, NCLT will hear arguments. The Tribunal may pass an interim order at admission stage or defer to a full hearing. The final order under Section 242 can include any of the wide-ranging reliefs discussed in Section 5 above.

9. Appeal to NCLAT

Any order of NCLT (including interlocutory orders) can be challenged before the NCLAT within 45 days. A further appeal to the Supreme Court lies on questions of law under Section 423 of the Companies Act, 2013.

9. The Director’s Perspective — When You Are the Respondent

Being named as a respondent in an O&M petition is among the most stressful experiences for a director. The petition is public, it can attract interim orders restraining your powers, and adverse NCLT orders can result in a five-year bar on your directorship. Here is what directors must do immediately on receiving an NCLT notice:

Do not ignore the notice — failure to appear can result in ex-parte orders against you
Engage experienced NCLT counsel immediately — the first hearing for interim relief can happen within weeks
Preserve all Board minutes, resolutions, financial records, and communications relevant to the alleged conduct
File a detailed counter-affidavit addressing every allegation with documentary evidence
Challenge the maintainability of the petition at the threshold stage — many petitions fail on Section 244 eligibility alone
Demonstrate that the impugned acts were taken in good faith, in compliance with the Companies Act, and in the best interests of the company
If there is an underlying commercial dispute (e.g., non-payment of dues, breach of SHA), explore the possibility of a negotiated settlement — NCLT proceedings are expensive and protracted

Director’s Key Defence — Bare Removal Is Not Enough:

As the Supreme Court held in Tata Sons, removal of a director from the Board — even if procedurally irregular — does not per se amount to oppression. The petitioner must prove that the removal was part of a larger design to oppress or prejudice the interests of some members. A director who was removed in compliance with the Companies Act (e.g., by a valid special resolution under Section 169) can strongly contest a Section 241 petition based on that removal alone.

10. O&M Petition vs Other Available Remedies

Aggrieved shareholders have multiple legal avenues. It is important to choose the right forum for the right dispute:

Remedy	Forum	Best Used When
O&M Petition (Secs. 241–244)	NCLT	Continuing oppression or mismanagement by majority; need for broad structural relief (buyout, management change)
Class Action Suit (Sec. 245)	NCLT	Large number of members/depositors aggrieved by the same wrongful act; claim against company, directors, or auditors
Winding Up (Sec. 271)	NCLT	Just and equitable ground; deadlock in management; company formed for fraudulent purpose
Injunction	Civil Court / NCLT	Immediate, specific restraint required — e.g., preventing a meeting from proceeding or asset transfer
Arbitration (SHA)	Arbitral Tribunal	Shareholder agreement contains arbitration clause; dispute is contractual in nature
Complaint to MCA/ROC	ROC / Central Govt.	Non-filing of returns, statutory violations; regulatory enforcement needed
Derivative Action	NCLT / Civil Court	Director fraud or breach of duty causing loss to the company; member sues on behalf of the company

11. Prevention Is Better Than Litigation — Corporate Governance Tips

Most O&M disputes in closely-held companies could have been avoided with better governance structures at inception. Here is what S Choudhary & Co. advises as preventive measures:

Draft a comprehensive Shareholders’ Agreement (SHA) with clear provisions on management rights, dividend policy, anti-dilution protection, tag-along/drag-along rights, and dispute resolution
Include a well-drafted pre-emption clause in the Articles of Association to prevent unexpected dilution of minority stakes
Clearly define the roles of promoter-directors, investor-directors, and independent directors in the SHA and Articles
Establish a functioning Audit Committee — even for private companies — to oversee related party transactions and financial controls
Hold regular Board meetings with proper notice and quorum; distribute minutes promptly to all directors
Appoint an independent Company Secretary to maintain statutory records and advise the Board on governance obligations
Include a mandatory mediation or cooling-off clause in the SHA before any party can approach NCLT — many family business disputes are resolvable through structured negotiation
Conduct an annual governance review — a Company Secretary’s governance audit can identify warning signs before they escalate to NCLT petitions

12. Quick Reference Checklist — Sections 241 to 244

#	Checklist Item	✓
1	Confirm membership status and that shares/interest are not disputed before any other court	☐
2	Verify that the conduct complained of is a continuous course of conduct, not an isolated incident	☐
3	Count eligible co-petitioners — confirm Section 244(1) threshold is met (100 members OR 10% of members OR 10% of issued capital)	☐
4	If threshold is not met, assess whether exceptional circumstances justify a waiver application	☐
5	Document all instances of oppressive conduct with dates, evidence, and financial impact	☐
6	Identify the specific relief sought under Section 242 (buyout, restriction on transfer, management change, etc.)	☐
7	Assess urgency — determine whether interim relief under Section 242(4) is needed	☐
8	Engage an NCLT-experienced advocate. Prepare the Company Petition in the prescribed form	☐
9	File before the territorially competent NCLT Bench (based on registered office of the company)	☐
10	If respondent: verify that notice was validly served and respond within the time specified by NCLT	☐
11	If respondent: file counter-affidavit challenging maintainability on Section 244 threshold first	☐
12	Keep track of 45-day period for NCLAT appeal if aggrieved by any NCLT interim or final order	☐

13. Frequently Asked Questions

Q. Can a single shareholder file an O&M petition under Section 241?

A. Not directly — unless they meet the 10% of issued share capital threshold under Section 244(1)(a). However, a single member may file with the written consent of other members who together meet the eligibility threshold. Additionally, if the facts disclose exceptional circumstances, NCLT may waive the threshold requirement under the proviso to Section 244(1). Consult a professional before assuming you cannot file.

Q. Is there a limitation period for filing an O&M petition?

A. There is no express limitation period prescribed under Sections 241–244 of the Companies Act, 2013 (unlike, for example, the 3-year period under the Limitation Act for certain claims). However, unexplained delay in approaching NCLT can be a ground for dismissal, and courts have held that laches (unreasonable delay) can disentitle a petitioner to equitable relief. Act promptly once you identify the grounds.

Q. Can NCLT order the winding up of a company on an O&M petition?

A. NCLT can recommend that a company be wound up under Section 242(1)(b) if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the facts justify winding up under just and equitable grounds. However, the Supreme Court has held that a mere lack of confidence between majority and minority shareholders — without more — is not sufficient justification for winding up. Winding up is a remedy of last resort.

Q. I was removed as a director by a Board resolution. Is this oppression?

A. Removal of a director per se is not oppression under Section 241. The Supreme Court in Tata Sons held that removal from directorship must be shown to be part of a larger design to oppress or prejudice the interests of some members. If the removal was the culmination of a series of acts designed to exclude you from participation in the company in which you had a legitimate expectation of involvement — then it may constitute oppression when viewed in totality.

Q. Can the Central Government file an O&M petition?

A. Yes. Section 241(2) empowers the Central Government to apply to NCLT for an order if it is of the opinion that the company’s affairs are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest. The Central Government does not need to meet the Section 244 eligibility threshold — that threshold applies only to member petitioners. The Delhi Gymkhana Club case is a notable recent instance of the Central Government invoking this power.

Q. What is the difference between an O&M petition and a winding-up petition?

A. An O&M petition under Section 241 seeks to regulate or reform the company’s affairs and management — it is a remedy aimed at preserving the company while correcting misconduct. A winding-up petition under Section 271 seeks to dissolve the company entirely. NCLT may, in an O&M petition, conclude that winding up is the appropriate remedy — but this is a last resort. Conversely, in a winding-up petition, the Tribunal cannot pass the wide-ranging management reform orders available under Section 242.

Q. Can a former director (who has already been removed) file an O&M petition?

A. A former director who no longer holds shares in the company generally cannot file an O&M petition under Section 241, as the right to petition is tied to membership (shareholding) status. However, if the former director continues to hold shares in the company, they can file in their capacity as a member — provided the Section 244 threshold is met.

Conclusion

Sections 241 to 244 of the Companies Act, 2013 are among the most powerful — and most misunderstood — provisions in Indian corporate law. They provide a genuine statutory remedy for minority shareholders suffering from oppression and for stakeholders facing management that acts against the company’s own interests. At the same time, they are not a cure-all: the eligibility threshold, the need for a continuous course of conduct, and the Supreme Court’s clarification that reinstatement is not available have given these provisions well-defined contours.

For directors facing an O&M petition, the stakes are extremely high — both in terms of reputation and the possibility of a five-year bar on future directorship. For petitioners, the complexity of NCLT proceedings and the importance of meeting the Section 244 threshold make professional guidance indispensable from the very beginning.

S Choudhary & Co. advises and represents clients on both sides of O&M disputes — as advisors to petitioners building their case, and as compliance and governance counsel to respondent companies and directors. We also help promoters and founders design governance structures that prevent these disputes from arising in the first place.

Oppression & Mismanagement Under Sections 241–244 of the Companies Act, 2013