Nazim, a director of Arabian Foods Ltd filed a complaint of oppression in the Tribunal for relief u/s 241 against the company for alleged acts of excessive expenditure in the books of accounts and disposal of assets of t

He (the director Nazim) will not succeed in his claim. As the application u/s 241 can be filed only by a member and not director. Secondly minor acts of irregularity will not be considered as the act of oppression. Minor acts of mismanagement, however, are not to be regarded as oppression. As far as possible, shareholders should try to resolve their differences by mutual readjustment. Moreover, the courts will not allow these special remedies to become a vexatious source of litigation. For example, in Lalita Rajya Lakshmi v. Indian Motor Co. A.I.R. 1962 Cal 127, the petitioner alleged that the Board of directors were guilty of certain acts detrimental to the minority of the shareholders. The allegations were that the income of the company was deliberately shown less by excessive expenditure; that passengers travelling without ticket on the company's buses were not checked; that petrol consumption was not properly checked; that second hand buses of the company had been disposed of at low price, that dividends were being declared at too low a figure. It was held that even if each of these allegations were proved to the satisfaction of the court, there would have been no oppression. A member can complain of oppression only in his capacity as a member and not in his capacity as director or creditor [In Re. Bellador Silk Ltd., (1965)].