Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2009 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (2) TMI 458 - SUPREME COURTWhether this is a case where jurisdiction under article 136 of the Constitution should be exercised? Held that:- Appeal dismissed. There are some factual controversies, for example, the effect of the appellants ratifying the balance-sheet, appearing before the sales tax authorities and the undisputed position with respect to share application money as reflected in the financial statements. It is difficult to believe that even though the conversion of the share application money was done in June, 1994, October, 1994 and January, 1995, it was not in the knowledge of the appellants. The fact that the appellants were representing the company before various authorities including the sales tax authorities and income-tax authority clearly rules out the possibility of the appellants being unaware of the situation. It is true that the allotment of shares is different from receipt of share application money but the conduct of the parties and their understanding of the situation largely determines the basic issue. Thus considering the nature of the controversy we do not consider this to be a fit case where any interference under article 136 of the Constitution is called for.
|