Company Law Board

Non-transparent functioning amounts to oppression & mismanagement in affairs of company

Pravin Jain Vs Diastar Jewellery (P.) Ltd. (Company Law Board, Mumbai)

Non-transparent functioning of the R-I Company is evident from the correspondence produced by the petitioners who have been denied access to the statutory Records and the A/c books despite holding 52.94%, shares in the R-I Company. Huge amounts owed by Diastar Inc. USA to the R-I Company, admittedly a concern of R-2 & R-3, have been wr...

Read More

Illegal appointment/ removal of director & illegal allotment of shares & manipulation of accounts proves oppression

Smt. Hema Singh Vs ANC Construction (P.) Ltd. (Delhi, Company Law Board)

It is noted that the allotment of 75000 shares to R-2 (73500) and 1500 share to R-3 is an afterthought done through manipulation. The petitioner's contentions in this regard have not been met. Form 2 filed in this regard on 1-6-2005 is hereby cancelled, restricting the shareholdings as per Form 2 filed with the ROC on 11-5-2005....

Read More

S. 397 pettition – Investors may either become members as per initial understanding or can receive back their investments

Aman Goel Vs EileenTech Communications (I) (P.) Ltd. (Delhi, Company Law Board)

CP No 18/07 stands disposed off in the above terms. All CAs stand disposed off. All interim orders stand vacated. No order as to cost. The B.O New Delhi, Bench to send a copy of this order to R-10 & R-11 at their new address at 207-Gaur Green Avenue, Abhay Khand-II, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, U.P....

Read More

Resolution sent by shareholder to abuse process of law and to gain needless publicity for defamatory matter could not be published & circulated

Torrent Power Ltd. Vs Sureshchandra V. Parekh (Mumbai, Company Law Board)

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 7 Folios for 7 shares...

Read More

ROC may ask company to make good the default in filing from No. 8

Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. (RBS) Vs Caohe Technologies (P.)Ltd. (Mumbai, Company Law Board)

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 section 125. In ...

Read More

A member can ask for inspection of Companies record any time after he became Member

Rajendra G. Patel Vs Sanghi Industries Ltd. (Chennai, Company Law Board)

The statute provides a right to the member or debenture-holder for inspection of the statutory registers and records as contemplated u/s 163 of the Act. The inspection is allowed to a member or debenture-holder without fee and any other person on payment of such sum as may be prescribed for each inspection. The member or debenture-holder ...

Read More

Issue of shares to reduce shareholding of petitioner shareholder-company after removing its directors without any notice is per se oppressive

Daksha Infra Build (P.) Ltd. Vs Rochees Resorts (India) (P.) Ltd. (Delhi, Company Law Board)

The case of Chatterjee Petrochem (I) (P.) Ltd. v. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. [2011] 110 SCL 107 is clearly distinguishable as in that case when the company was in dire need of funds the Chatterjee Group had failed to keep its promise of providing funds as it obtained a loan raising the debt equity ratio of the company. These circumstance...

Read More

If main petition is pending for adjudication, interim reliefs in the nature of main reliefs cannot be granted

Arun Amidwar Vs Grip Tight Packaging (India) (P.) Ltd. (Mumbai, Company Law Board)

In the present case the petitioner No. l was removed as director and this Bench presumes that the convening and holding of general meeting in which he was removed is legal and valid. So far as para 11.3 of the reliefs is concerned that the R1-company be directed to be operated only with the joint signature of the petitioner No.1 and resp...

Read More

Petition U/s. 397 filed by Minors alleging oppression & Mismanagement is not maintainable

Aruna Hotels Ltd. Vs Kamal Babbar (Chennai, Company Law Board)

To file a petition u/s 397, 398 of the Act, one has to fulfil the requirement as contemplated under the above provision of law. Unless and until the above criterion is fulfilled, the petition is not maintainable. The persons who can qualify to file the petition are (i) in case the company is having a share capital, not less than 100 membe...

Read More

Petition alleging oppression not maintainable if petitioner doesn’t have requisite qualification shares

Kailash Nath Roy Vs Bengal Bonded Warehouse Association (Kolkata Company Law Board)

Under section 399 of the Act, statute has made it clear that 10 per cent shareholding is requisite qualification to invoke jurisdiction under sections 397 and 398 of the Act. If the joint shareholding of first petitioner has become half, then certainly this petition is short of the requisite qualification that is required under section 39...

Read More

During pendency of oppression petition no further issue of shares permissible unless proved to be in Companies interest

Sharvani Energy (P.) Ltd. Vs N. VenkateshwarRao (Chennai Company Law Board)

The petitioners, who are the respondents in this application, have filed the company petition by invoking various provisions of the Act, alleging certain acts of oppression and mismanagement against the applicants herein. The petitioners are opposing the increase of share capital and allotment of shares on the ground that they were hol...

Read More

Companies to register Charge with ROC within 30 days from its creation date

Kalupur Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs Registrar of Companies (Mumbai Company Law Board)

The charge has to be registered by filing Form 8 with the concerned RoC in terms of section 125 within a period of 30 days after the creation of the charge. The RoC may allow another 30 days time on payment of additional fee and therefore, total 60 days time is available to file the necessary forms with the RoC for creating the charge ove...

Read More

Companies not liable for settlement between two groups entered on behalf of it by unauthorized signatory

Abhishek Ahuja Vs Rockman Breweries (TNK) Ltd. (Delhi Company Law Board)

Since the proposed minutes containing the terms of consensus filed on 28/02/2012 does not contain any authorization by R-l in favour of Mr. C.S. Agarwal R-2 to sign such minutes on its behalf, the minutes dated 28/02/2012 and the order dated 23/03/2012 cannot be enforced against the R-l company. It is open to the parties to file a joint a...

Read More

Despite family settlement, transfer of share must be in accordance with law

Perennial Trading (P.) Ltd. Vs Pankaj Extrusions Ltd. (Company Law Board, Mumbai)

The case of the petitioner is that the respondents have removed their name without sufficient cause and without due compliance of the provisions of law and entered the name of respondent No. 3. From the pleadings it is unequivocal that there is a family settlement and the transfers have taken place pursuant to the said family settlement. ...

Read More

Change in shareholding with sole object of gaining control of company is oppression

Rajendra Prasad Rungta Vs Amber Commercial (P.) Ltd. (Company Law Board Delhi)

The petitioners allegations that their group has been converted from a majority to a minority in shareholding and respondents representation in management has substantially been increased are found to be correct. In view of the continuous effects of such oppressive acts, to undo the effects and to regulate the affairs of the R-1-company i...

Read More

Board Meetings without quorum & irregularities in filing Form 32 is Oppression & Mismanagement

Naresh Mohan Mittal Vs Sangeeta Construction (P.) Ltd. (Company Law Board Delhi)

The fiduciary capacity within which directors have to act enjoins duty upon them to act on behalf of the company with utmost care and skill and due diligence and in the interest of the company. More so, in a family company where even directorial complaints can be looked into. Directors have a duty to make full and honest disclosures to sh...

Read More

Once a company shows in its accounts any money under the head paid up capital than it will be presumed that share has been allotted

Smt. Nupur Mitra & others Vs M/S Basubani Private Limited (Company Law Board Kolkata)

The instant petition was disposed by this Bench by an order dated 13.10.2000. However, due to administrative difficulties, the same was dispatched to the parties only on 22.11.2000. Before the receipt of the said order, the petitioners had filed two applications-one on 2.11.2000 and another on 20.11.2000, enclosing therewith certain docum...

Read More

CLB judgment on non issue of further shares to existing shareholders

Satish Chandra Sanwalka & others Vs M/s Tinplate Dealers Association Pvt Ltd & others (Company Law Board- Principal Bench, New Delhi)

The petitioners claiming to hold 4132 partly paid ordinary shares of Rs.100/-each and 3065 fully paid preference shares of Rs.100/-each in M/S Tinplate Dealers Association Private Limited ( the company) have filed this petition under Sections 397/398 and Section 111(4) of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) alleging various acts of oppressi...

Read More

Yashovardhan Saboo vs Groz-Beckert Saboo Ltd. And Ors. (CLB)

Yashovardhan Saboo Vs Groz-Beckert Saboo Ltd. And Ors. (Company Law Board)

One of the tests of what constitutes 'oppression' within the meaning of Section 397 of the Act is to see whether the majority is taking an unfair advantage of their position as a majority. The second test is to find out whether in the exercise of the fiduciary power, the group concerned was attempting to destroy the existing majority or t...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (5,040)
Company Law (6,698)
Custom Duty (8,071)
DGFT (4,384)
Excise Duty (4,406)
Fema / RBI (4,433)
Finance (4,692)
Income Tax (35,030)
SEBI (3,753)
Service Tax (3,626)

Search Posts by Date

November 2020