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Resolution sent by shareholder to abuse process of law and to gain needless publicity for defamatory matter could not be published & circulated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

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (5,219)
Company Law (6,936)
Custom Duty (8,312)
DGFT (4,461)
Excise Duty (4,442)
Fema / RBI (4,561)
Finance (4,796)
Income Tax (36,024)
SEBI (3,839)
Service Tax (3,674)

Search Posts by Date

March 2021