Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law CLB Companies Law - CLB
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

Companies Law - Company Law Board - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 284 Records

  • 2016 (12) TMI 1427 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI

    Dinesh Dhabhai Versus Dadhikar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and ORS.

    Reliefs seeked including declaring appointment of R3 as invalid and also resignation of R2 as director from R1-Company as null and void - Held that - It is the petitioner who suffered in between these two brothers i.e. R2 &R3. Since R2 admitted in his affidavit that he was forced to sign on some papers, it is in between R2 & R3 to decide whether any transfer taken place or not. As long as such transfer in a private company governed by clause ....... + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 853 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI

    SIDHARTH GUPTA AND ORS. Versus M/s. GETIT INFOSERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS.

    Oppression V/S Arbitration - Whether the subject matter in this CP falls within the ambit of jurisdiction u/s 397, 398 r/w 402 & 403 or within the ambit of arbitration clause constituted in the SSHA arrived at between the parties - Held that - The only persons, not parties to the Arbitration clause are R4-8 and Performa R9-13. R4 to R8 are nominee directors on behalf of R2, therefore, R2 being a party to the proceedings, it makes no differenc....... + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 785 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI

    MR. RUPAK GUPTA AND ANR. Versus M/s. U.P. HOTELS LIMITED AND ORS.

    Holding a Board meeting and passing resolutions by preventing the applicant and his mother participate in the Board - video conferencing not provided - Held that - As gone through the entire rules 3, as understood that this rule is meant for providing video conferencing, indeed it is the duty of the directors convening the Board meeting to inform the other directors regarding the options available to them to participate in the video conferencing ....... + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 765 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI

    IN RE : UNITECH LTD.

    Default in making repayment to the depositors as per undertaking given by the Managing Director of the company - Held that - When the petitioner company could not repay ₹ 30 crores of money in the time given by this Bench as asked by the company on 11-3-2016, it could not be possible for the company to clear ₹ 550 crores dues payable to the depositors in near future. - Seeing the developments so far taken place in this case, this Benc....... + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 117 - COMPANY LAW BOARD CHENNAI

    Dr. Renuka Datla and Others Versus M/s Biological E Limited

    Oppression and mismanagement - maintainability of petition - Held that - Admittedly as per the documents filed by the petitioner the Company has 13 shareholders as on 30.09.2011 even without taking into the additional members of the Rl Company. From the documents it is evident that the Rl Company is having 14 shareholders as on the date of filing of the petition. Accordingly, the first criteria i.e. 1/10 of the shareholders to maintain a petition....... + More


  • 2016 (6) TMI 185 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI

    VIL Limited and Ors. Versus Raibareilly Allahabad Highway Pvt. Ltd. and Ors

    Quorum for meeting - whether for convening general meeting by holding even single shareholder presence is deemed to constitute meeting as envisaged u/s 186 of Companies Act, 1956 - Held that - records of R-1 Company were throughout being maintained in Lucknow, R-2 says, it is incomprehensible to him as 10 how the records which were earlier maintained at Lucknow have been suddenly shifted to Delhi just before convening a board meeting. It is true ....... + More


  • 2016 (5) TMI 645 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI

    Union of India Versus M/s. Financial Technologies (India) Ltd. and Ors.

    Doctrine u/s 10 of CPC - request for stay of proceedings - allegations of violation of the principles of corporate governance which has led to payment crisis - Held that - The remedy under section 388B, 397, 398 is altogether different from the remedy, the investors sought in Civil Cases. Moreover, Section 10 says that the parties must be the same in the prior suit and the matter in issue shall be directly and substantially in issue in a previous....... + More


  • 2016 (4) TMI 876 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI

    M/s Avigo PE Investments Ltd. Versus M/s. Tecpro Engineers Ltd. and Ors.

    Mismanagement and oppression - Arbitration and Conciliation seeked - Held that - On a close examination of the provisions of section 397, 398 and 402 of the Act it must be said that Company Law Board has wide power to adopt correctional mechanism when the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of general public or to a manner oppressive to any Member and /or shareholders. The Company Law Board is also c....... + More


  • 2016 (4) TMI 91 - COMPANY LAW BOARD KOLKATA

    Mr. Ravi Rajnish and Mrs. Archana Rajnish Versus M/s. Jain Link Private Limited and Others

    Demurrer application - Held that - As the issue of maintainability involves the mixed question of law and facts. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the prayers made in the instant Company Application are partly allowed to the extent that the demurrer application be heard and decided first and for this purpose, the Respondents Advocate is hereby directed to file the reply to the Company Petition within 3 weeks and rejoinder, if any, be filed b....... + More


  • 2016 (3) TMI 882 - COMPANY LAW BOARD KOLKATA

    Mr. Partha Ghosh and Mrs. Sumana Ghosh Versus M/s. Pragati 47 Development Limited and Others

    Oppression and mismanagement - Held that - It is crystal clear that the Company Petition was filed by the Petitioners/Non-Applicants based on the allegations of acts of oppression and mismanagement on the part of the Respondents and this implies that the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 were not having control over the affairs of the Company. This is further confirmed by the fact that in any annual return, the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 were not shown as P....... + More


  • 2016 (3) TMI 33 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI

    Shri Sudhir Kumar Jain and Ors. Versus M/s Aryan Wheels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

    Restoration of directorship - jurisdiction of this court conferred under sections 397 & 398 read with section 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for brevity 1956 Act) and section 59 of Companies Act, 2013 - prayer for issuance of an order restoring their directorship alongwith their rights to sign all the bank accounts of Respondent No. l-Company - Held that - In the present case the petitioners have asserted in their pleadings that no notice of....... + More


  • 2016 (2) TMI 447 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI

    Mr. Ajit Singh Bhandari and Ors. Versus Bhandari Builders Pvt. Ltd and Ors.

    Amalgamation - Scheme for the management and administration of BBPL - injunction - Held that - The Board of Directors of BBPL is superseded. Hon ble Mr. Justice Permod Kohli and a former Chief Justice of Sikkim High Court is appointed as an Administrator of BBPL company to look after its day to day affairs. The Administrator shall be provided with the office area in New Delhi befitting his Lordship s status by Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and whole ....... + More


  • 2016 (1) TMI 652 - COMPANY LAW BOARD KOLKATA

    Mr. Raj Shekhar Agrawal and Mrs. Vandana Agrawal Versus M/s. Pragati 47 Development Limited and Others

    Oppression and mismanagement - Held that - The Company Petition was filed by the Petitioners based on the allegations of acts of oppression and mismanagement on the part of the Respondents and this implies that the Petitioners were not having control over the affairs of the Company. This is further confirmed by the fact that in any annual return, the Petitioners were not shown as Promoters. - As admitted by the Applicant Advocate as well as the A....... + More


  • 2015 (12) TMI 1694 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, KOLKATA

    Jyotirmoy Ghosh and Ors. Versus A. Tosh and Sons (India) Ltd. and Ors.

    Oppression and mismanagement - maintainability of petition - proof of demurer application - consenting shareholders - Held that - The number of shareholders have been attempted to be increased by opening new folios in the register of members though the shareholders are limited. In fact, the spirit of section 399 concentrates on one-tenth of the ownership either in terms of the percentage of shareholding or in terms of number of shareholders of th....... + More


  • 2015 (12) TMI 1378 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI

    MR. CHRISTIANUS MULLER AND ORS. Versus M/s A AND C BRAID AND ROPE COMPANY Pvt. Ltd. AND ORS.

    Application u/s 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Whether the dispute raised in a properly filed petition under sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act can be referred to arbitration in accordance with the agreement between the parties? - Held that - The arguments look attractive at the first blush but when examined closely find that it lacks substance. A perusal of para 22 of the petition which contains prayer for var....... + More


  • 2015 (12) TMI 1193 - COMPANY LAW BOARD MUMBAI

    M/s NEO FINANCE PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS Versus MR. RAKESH SONI AND OTHERS

    Oppression and mismanagement - transmission of shares - Petitioner has sought a declaration to the effect that he is owner and title holder of 7083.8 shares being the successor of the Estate of Mrs. Jayshree Soni who passed away intestate on 31/12/2012 - increasing the authorized share capital of the Respondent No.1 Company - Held that - It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to l/5th share i.e. 7083 shares from the shares left by late Sm....... + More


  • 2015 (11) TMI 1702 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, CHENNAI

    Ayoli Abdulla Versus MS Meezan Realtors Pvt Ltd, Mr Abdusalam Kurikkal Man. ieri Puthusseri, Mt' Mohamed Rutty Chelat, Mr. Pocker Ullatil.

    Oppression and mismanagement - maintainability of appeal - Held that - Unless and until the qualification as prescribed under section 399 of the Act, no member can file a petition before this Bench. In the present case the petitioner ceased to be a shareholder of the company and has no locus standi to file a petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Bench. Therefore the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in limine on this gr....... + More


  • 2015 (11) TMI 264 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI

    Dharamdas Nandlal Mehta Versus Meridian Construction (P.) Ltd.

    Grant of development rights - Restraint order against a person who is not a shareholder of R1 company - creation of third party rights - Held that - In this case the petitioners initiated this CP against the act of Respondents saying the conduct of R2 and others is oppressive, and this fact of creating third party rights to Magnum has come to their noticed only after disclosure come from the Respondents side, therefore it cannot be said it is hit....... + More


  • 2015 (11) TMI 263 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI

    Narottam Singh Versus M/s Notam India (P.) Ltd.

    Maintainability of petition under sections 397 & 398 of the Companies Act 1956 - oppression and mismanagement - Held that - It is true that it is undisputable when a proceeding is withdrawn unconditionally, there shall not be any later proceeding on the same cause of action, but when the reliefs are different which cannot be granted in the earlier proceeding, for such reliefs, if any statutory right is conferred on any person to proceed befor....... + More


  • 2015 (10) TMI 2440 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI

    Mahendra Kumar Johari Versus Johari Jewels (P.) Ltd.

    Construction to asset Passed status quo order Construction over building whereupon status quo granted is nothing but wilful disobedience of orders passed Respondent contends that property impugned leased out in 2005 to a non-party and no order has been passed over this tenancy - It is not indicated anywhere in Observation Report that existing building has been demolished and new structure erected in place of old structure upon which status quo wa....... + More


1........
 
 
 
Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version