Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2010 (4) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2010 (4) TMI 609 - HC - Companies Law


Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the company petition under section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Jurisdiction of the Company Law Board to entertain challenges regarding the allotment of shares by a public company.
3. Conflicting judgments on the interpretation of section 111A of the Companies Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Company Petition under Section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956:
The primary issue addressed was whether an appeal lies under section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956 concerning the allotment of shares by a public company. The judgment concluded that such an appeal does not lie under section 111A. This conclusion was based on precedent, specifically the judgment in Gopal Krishan Banga v. Poona Industrial Hotel Ltd. [1999] 22 SCL 90 (Bom.), which held that section 111A does not cover the allotment of shares by a public company. The court emphasized that the legislative intent behind section 111A was to address the transfer of shares, not their allotment.

2. Jurisdiction of the Company Law Board:
The Company Law Board had dismissed the appellant's petition challenging the allotment of shares on the ground that it was not maintainable under section 111A. The court upheld this decision, reiterating that section 111A pertains to the transfer of shares and not to their allotment. The judgment in Gopal Krishan Banga's case was cited, which clarified that the wider right of appeal provided by sub-section (4) of section 111 was not enacted in section 111A for public companies. Therefore, the Company Law Board correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

3. Conflicting Judgments on the Interpretation of Section 111A:
The appellant relied on a conflicting judgment in Finolex Industries Ltd. v. Anil Ramchand Chhabria [2008] 144 Comp. Cas. 7381 (Bom.), which suggested that the remedies under section 111A could be interpreted to include allotments. However, the court found that the judgment in Finolex Industries Ltd. was per incuriam (lacking consideration of earlier binding precedent) as it did not consider the earlier judgment in Gopal Krishan Banga's case. The court clarified that the judgment in Finolex Industries Ltd. dealt with the transmission of shares, not allotment, and thus did not directly apply to the current case. The court decided to follow the precedent set by Gopal Krishan Banga's case, thereby dismissing the appeals.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Company Law Board's decision that the petition challenging the allotment of shares was not maintainable under section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956. The judgment reaffirmed that section 111A does not provide a remedy for challenging the allotment of shares by a public company and emphasized adherence to the precedent set by Gopal Krishan Banga's case. The court also declined to refer the matter to a larger bench, asserting that the earlier judgment in Gopal Krishan Banga's case was binding and correctly interpreted the legislative intent.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates