Company Law India: Read latest Company law news & updates, acts, circular, notifications & articles issued by MCA amendment in companies Act 2013. Article on Loans Company formation XBRL, Schedule VI IFRS.
Company Law : One Person Companies (OPCs) need to record annual returns to remain compliant with legal requirements. However, many business owne...
Company Law : The process of striking off a private limited company refers to the removal of a company’s name from the Register of Compani...
Company Law : Appointment of other officer such as CTO, COO, and CMO as Key Managerial Personnel (KMP) under Companies Act, 2013 – Key Con...
Company Law : Private Limited Companies in India ought to observe annual filing necessities to keep transparency and prison standing. This artic...
Company Law : Cost audit and cost records serve as essential tools for achieving these objectives, enabling companies to monitor, control, an...
Company Law : NFRA's 2023 inspection of Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP finds improvements but notes ongoing issues in key audit areas....
Company Law : NFRA highlights auditor responsibilities in related party transactions, emphasizing compliance with Ind AS 24, SEBI regulations, a...
Company Law : NFRA outlines audit strategy and planning requirements, emphasizing auditor communication with audit committees and compliance wit...
Company Law : NFRA's 2023 inspection of Walker Chandiok & Co. LLP reveals ongoing issues in independence and audit procedures....
Company Law : NFRA's 2023 inspection of SRBC & Co. LLP highlights audit quality issues, independence concerns, and compliance with auditing stan...
Company Law : NCLAT Delhi held that beneficiary under the personal guarantee is fully entitled to initiate Personal Insolvency Resolution Proces...
Company Law : When the corporate debtor failed to pay the outstanding power obligation, appellant subsequently cut off the electrical service. O...
Company Law : The plain reading of the above provisions of Section 60(5)(c) clearly indicates that the NCLT is empowered to adjudicate any quest...
Company Law : NCLAT Delhi quashes CIRP against Alcuris Healthcare, ruling profit-sharing disputes do not constitute operational debt under IBC. ...
Company Law : NCLAT dismisses appeals in Saturn Ventures case, upholding RP’s findings on asset ownership and rejecting fraudulent transaction...
Company Law : Summary of the appeal by Aaryak Jewellery Pvt Ltd against penalties under Sections 42, 55, and 62 of Companies Act, 2013. Decision...
Company Law : River Mobility Pvt. Ltd. appealed against a ₹3L penalty for delayed share certificate issuance. ITAT reduced it to ₹1L. Read t...
Company Law : The appeal by Maptech Poly Products Pvt Ltd against a penalty for non-maintenance of its registered office was dismissed by the Re...
Company Law : Vishnupriya Hotels' appeal led to a penalty reduction for non-compliance with Section 149(3) of the Companies Act. The company pai...
Company Law : Vishnupriya Hotels appealed against CSR non-compliance penalties. The Regional Director reduced the fine after reviewing submissio...
In the present case, there were undoubtedly three separate contracts entered into between the parties. One was for the supply of cables and the other two for supply of accessories, i.e., Jumpers, Connectors and Surge Arrestors. Both the parties have been dealing with each other for over seven years. The Petitioner itself being the manufacturer of cables and accessories knew that for the purpose of the business of the Respondent the mere supply of cables without the accessories could not be sufficient. The Respondent was in turn supplying cables and accessories to the telecom service providers including Tata Tele Services Limited (‘TTL’). The mere supply of cables to TTL would not have constituted a complete delivery of goods. The peak period in the telecom industry for the supply of cables was the first three months of the year. Therefore, the failure on the part of the Petitioner to supply the accessories would adversely affect the corresponding obligations of the Respondent to its customers.
It was observed by the CLB that if the Appellants failed to cooperate with NHEL for the determination of the value of the occupied premises, including land, plant and machinery and do not accept the fair value of the assets determined, the petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The impugned order thus makes it impossible for the Appellants to even question the valuation. Having succeeded in demonstrating oppression by the Respondents, the Appellants cannot be compelled to accept an arbitrary and unilateral determination of the fair value by the Respondents not based on any sound financial and accounting principles. The remedy provided by the CLB has thus been rendered illusory.
Further it is clarified that fee payable for forms on/till 16-01-2013 will remain payable along with additional fee and relaxation of any additional fee will be considered for forms on or after 17-01-2013.
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 (1).
The alternative prayer that RLB should be directed to be wound up, since its entire substratum has disappeared, will require a detailed examination of several relevant factors, all of which are not before the Court. Nothing precludes RLB from seeking winding up in accordance with law in appropriate proceedings by placing the full facts before the Court which can then be responded to by the OL, the RD and other interested parties including creditors. Given the pleadings in the present application, it is not possible to undertake that exercise at this stage.
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 shares, those issues would be beyond the jurisdiction of the company court and would have to be decided by the civil court. This would be upon the issues that arise in an application. It may be mentioned that an issue arises when a material fact is alleged and disputed. Hence, mere mention of fraud may not take the matter out of the exclusive jurisdiction granted by the statute to the CLB, but when the “very title to the shares” is challenged and the court sees that that is at least prima facie shown, the civil court’s jurisdiction would not stand barred.
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 notice was properly delivered to the Respondent, its request for adjournment of the meeting could have been easily accommodated by the Appellants. Nevertheless, they went ahead and held the meeting. This has been sought to be remedied by the impugned order of the CLB by directing that a fresh board meeting be convened. In the facts and circumstances, the CLB was justified in issuing the said direction. What however cannot be sustained in law is the direction that in the fresh board meeting, effect must be given to clause 6.2 of the JVA. That portion of the impugned order is, therefore, set aside.
The Regional Director or Registrd of Companies or any other officer of the Central Government shall be authorised to make complaints under sub-section (2) of section 58AAA of the Act.
The fact that in the 80th AGM held on 30th July 2007, the audited accounts for the financial years ended 31st March 2004, 31st March 2005 and 31st March 2006 were placed and adopted makes it clear that any default in that regard by BSMCL stands condoned. No other shareholder has objected to those accounts. They are taken to be the audited accounts. Neither the ROC nor the RD, nor the OL raised any objection. The objection of Mr. H.K. Chadha that adjustment entries have to be made in the accounts prepared by BRS for an earlier period to arrive at the correct picture cannot, in the above circumstances, be countenanced. No material has been placed on record by Mr. H.K. Chadha to substantiate the plea of non-preparation of the audited accounts of the above financial years.
Further it is clarified that fee payable for forms on/till 16-01-2013 will remain payable along with additional fee and relaxation of any additional fee will be considered for forms on or after 17-01-2013
