The petitioner has succeeded in making out a case of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the R-1 Company. There is no answer to the illegal appointment of R-3 and R-4 to R-12. (Besides non-compliance of the prescribed procedures and provisions of the Act, the respondents have proceeded to oust the petitioner completely from [...]

The petitioners along with R-10 & R-11 have failed to make out any case u/s. 399 of the Act to be eligible to maintain this petition. The Petitioners are only directors of the R-I Company. Though they are shown as subscribers to the Memorandum of Association, that alone, without any consideration having been paid for [...]

The judgment in Bukhtiarpur Bihar Light Railway Co. Ltd. (supra) instructs that the court must be strict in assessing whether all the conditions laid down in Section 163(1)(i) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 (Section 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 carries the same provision in the successor statute) have all been complied with before [...]

It is noted that Shri Suresh Chandra V. Parekh and Smt. Nilaben S. Parekh jointly hold ten equity shares of Rs.100/- each under a common share certificate in HDFC Ltd. They requested for splitting of the said one share certificate into ten certificates of one share each. HDFC Ltd. acceded to their request and created [...]

A petition for winding up can be maintained at the behest of a creditor, whether secured or unsecured. This is evident from the provisions of section 439(1)(d). Under sub-section (2) of section 439, among others, a secured creditor is to be deemed to be a creditor within the meaning of clause (b) of sub section [...]

The scope of the powers of the Company Court under Section 392 of the Act, as explained by the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. (supra), does not permit rewriting of the scheme or introducing into it clauses that plainly do not exist. Consequently, this Court fails to appreciate how [...]

It is evident from the clauses referred to hereinabove, and from what has been narrated in this order earlier, that the bondholders were deliberately misled to believe that they would receive at least Rs. 250 in cash for each bond of Rs. 1,000, i.e., at least one-fourth of their principal latest by September 30, 2003. [...]

Though recognising that the company court (now CLB) would be the court of exclusive jurisdiction for applications for rectification of register of members, it is held that if the issues arose whether the plaintiff was the owner of the shares, whether there was fraud or forgery or there was dispute on the very title of [...]

The other ground on which the CLB interfered with the decision at the board meeting held on 31-10-2012 was that the notices of the board meeting were issued at a time when the Respondent was not in the country and was stuck in New Jersey, USA, which was admittedly hit by a hurricane. While the [...]

In the instant case, the respondent-company failed to file Form No. 8 with the concerned RoC. Therefore, the RoC, is directed to exercise his powers under section 234(1) by calling information with regard to filing of Form No. 8 and direct the respondent-company to make good the default in non-filing of e-form No. 8 under [...]