|
Advanced Search Options
Companies Law - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 9206 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2020 (11) TMI 518 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Grant of Leave to proceed with the suit - HELD THAT:- To have smooth and proper trial of the suit in question, it will be in the fitness of the things that the appellant / plaintiff is allowed to have the trial of the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants at the Delhi High Court itself upon its restoration by Delhi High Court as leave to proceed with the suit has been granted by the Company Judge now, as required under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 since the appellant / plaintiff has undertaken to reimburse the cost of the Official Liquidator, Madras to contest the suit at Delhi in view of the shortage of the funds of the Company in liquidation M/s.Rayalaseema Commodities Limited and has agreed to make the initial deposit of ₹ 3,00,000/- subject to the account of the same being furnished by the said Official Li....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 163 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Directions to respondents to permit the petitioners to get reappointed as Directors of any Company or appointed in any other Company without any hindrance - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in these writ petitions is no more a res integra. It is to be stated that the Registrar of Companies (RoC) has been disqualifying the Directors under Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 by order dated 08.09.2017. Another list was published in the website of the first respondent on 01.11.2017 disqualifying the Directors. Yet another list of Directors were disqualified on 17.12.2018 by the RoC. Petition allowed.
- 2020 (11) TMI 127 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Refusal to to grant permission for installation of new electricity connection sought by the petitioner / Company - permission has been refused on account of the fact of non- payment of electricity dues of Dhar Cement Limited - stand of the respondent is that the petitioner is having an alternative remedy, however, the forum, where the alternative remedy is available, has not been mentioned in the reply - HELD THAT:- This Court, in the present case, is witnessing objectionable stand of the respondent. In case, an application was preferred before the learned Company Judge for claiming electricity charges, the same should have been defended and claim should not have been relinquished only on account of an assurance given by the promoter. It requires a fact finding inquiry as to why nothing was done after an order was passed on 31.01.2014 whe....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 126 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Transfer of the captioned company petition under the substituted Section 434 in Companies Act, 2013 - According to the learned Counsel for the opponent, the cases which have not been transferred from the High Court as contemplated in (ii) of third proviso to Section 434 (1)(c) cannot be transferred. - HELD THAT:- Initially only those matters where the petition was not served upon the company, could be transferred; by subsequent amendment, all the petitions pending with the High Court irrespective of the stages, could be transferred. On plain reading of third proviso to Section 434 (1)(c) with fifth proviso which commences with "provided further" persuades this Court to say that the proviso 3(ii) to Section 434 (1)(c) is subject to fifth proviso; and thus on application under the fifth proviso, pending case can be transferred - I....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 28 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Extension of benefit of moratorium - Repayment of Term Loan - HELD THAT:- The Petitioner has filed an interim intervention application before NCLAT. The Petitioner sought a declaration that the Petitioner does not owe the ₹ 100 crores as claimed by the Respondent to them. The prayers are to modify the order of embargo, to refrain IFIN from taking any steps regarding Loan Agreement No.III, discharge the Petitioner from loan agreement No.III. In this application, the Petitioner has narrated the history, and the same assertion is made that the Petitioner placed full trust and confidence in the senior management of IL & FS. It is asserted that the facility sanctioned in favour of the Petitioner by IFIN was at the request of IFIN, and it was availed for a private loan to ITNL. Several parties are appearing before NCLAT and NCLT. Appl....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 26 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Recovery of outstanding dues - Possession of the immovable property - permission to complete the process of sale of the said immovable properties under the provisions of the section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - permission to continue with the actions taken under the provisions of Sections 13 and 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. HELD THAT:- The concern raised by the Official Liquidator with respect to the provisions of Section 529-A of the Companies Act, 1956, it is required to be noted that the said aspect has also been taken care of by the aforesaid principle. Therefore, in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited vs........ + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 1181 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Grant of Bail - Oppression and Mismanagement - appointment of Applicant as Director on the basis of forged director - It is alleged that Ex-Director without discussion with other Directors prepared forged documents and ousted his wife from the Directorship - HELD THAT:- This court finds that the dispute relates to the mismanagement of the affairs of the Pvt. Ltd. Company but the FIR has been lodged under provisions of IPC and procedure under Cr.P.C has been adopted in prosecution of applicant. The Companies Act, 2013 is a complete code which provides for the procedure of conduct investigation into the affairs of the company where allegations of fraud are made against the office bearers of the company. The allegations regarding the offences committed by the applicant should have been investigated under the provisions of companies act afore....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 1180 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Rearrangement of Shareholding - Demand of sums towards transfer fee - non-utility penalty in respect of plots owned by the petitioner - whether by change of name from TAGROS Chemicals India Limited to TAGROS Chemicals India Private Limited would tantamount to change of name in the company and therefore invite levying of transfer charges? - HELD THAT:- What has been done is rearrangement of shareholding within the family without there being a change in the total shareholding of the company. No new separate legal entity has been created - keeping in mind the provisions of Section 23(3) of the Companies Act and Section 14 thereof, what has really happened is that the change in the name of the company is only by adding the word 'private'. As per Section 13(2) of the Companies Act, any change in the name of the company shall be subject....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 1134 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - case in the plaint is that on account of absence of the mandatory notice under S. 286 of the Companies Act, 1956, being served on the petitioner / plaintiff, the meeting convened by the Board of Directors and the so called board resolution dated 2nd February, 2014 is void - Time Limitation. HELD THAT:- Although the respondents herein had raised a ground of limitation in respect of the challenge to the sale-deed of the year 2014 on the basis of S. 242 (2) (g) of the Companies Act, 2013, at this stage it does not appear that the said ground has been accepted by the NCLT. Quite to the contrary, the company petition is admitted, and as noticed earlier the NCLT has also held that if ultimately the transaction is held to be ultra vires, consequential reliefs....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 1072 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Summon Order - applicants argued that the impugned summoning order is a proforma order passed over printed proforma with no application of judicial mind - HELD THAT:- Whatever is in other cases is with regard to facts involved in those cases and in criminal case parity of this kind may not be claimed. Rather what is ground for filing this application and where is abuse of process of law has to be mentioned for having indulgence of this court. Hence under above pretext, this file reveals that this complaint was filed by Registrar of Companies u/s 211(3A)(3C) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with AS-15 and AS-13 against Gopal Das Bansal and three others with this contention that Mammon Concast was incorporated as Private Limited on 24.5.2010 under Companies Act having its registered office at 144, Kaveri Kunj, Phase II, Kamla Nagar, Agra. As....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 1070 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Disqualification of Director - non-filing of financial statements and annual returns - Section 92 and Section 137 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- Evident it is from the pleadings that the Company in question did not file its financial statements and annual return for the financial years 2015-16, 2016-17 and subsequent financial years. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioners were noticed on 25.5.2017, 23.4.2018 by the Registrar of Companies regarding non-filing of financial statements and annual returns for financial years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. Section 92 and Section 137 of the Companies Act, 2013 mandates filing of Annual Return and the Financial Statements with the Registrar. These provisions also contemplate penal action for non-compliance thereof. The petitioners have duly accepted the fact of non-filing of An....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 870 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Grant of Interim Relief - Amounts representing tax/Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on the price of the FCDs and interest payable to the Respondent, which was required to be deposited in Court, is withheld - HELD THAT:- The purchaser’s liability to pay this amount (namely, the Holdback Amount) into the treasury towards the tax liability of the seller is essentially a matter of their inter se agreement, which is contained in clause 4.5.1 of the SDPA. The payability of the tax for the consideration received under the SPDA may be a matter between the assessee i.e. (the Respondent seller) and the revenue, but so far as the deposit of the Holdback Amount into treasury towards the tax liability of the Respondent is concerned, it is certainly a matter as between the Respondent and its contracting counter party, namely, the Appellants. There is....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 596 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Ownership of shares - time limitation to claim ownership - The applicant, it appears, discovered, in and about April-June 1997 (after a gaop of about 4 years), that its name, as the shareholder of the Company, does not find mention in the annual return filed by the Company with the ROC. - whether the plaintiff could have filed a suit for declaration claiming a right in the subject 500 shares, based on the allegation that it was defrauded, given the aforementioned events? HELD THAT:- The period of limitation provided in Article 59 of the 1963 Limitation Act [which is 3 years] can commence only when the fraud was discovered in line with the provisions of Section 17 of the said Act. The expression “first become known to him” appearing in Article 59 in the context of an action filed based on a fraud employed by the defendant could....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 595 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Disqualifications for appointment of a Directors - Deactivation of DIN - whether a prior notice is required before disqualifying a director under Section 164(2) of CA 2013? - HELD THAT:- When Section 164(2) of CA 2013 is read with Rule 14 of the AQD Rules, it appears that, if Form DIR-9 is filed, the Registrar of Companies could rely on the names and addresses of directors that were provided by the Defaulting Company. Such reliance may not, however, be bereft of controversy especially when neither statute nor rule sets out the criteria for the preparation of such list. In any event, in all the cases at hand, such a list was not provided because the Defaulting Company did not file DIR-9. In such case, Rule 14(3) provides for resort to Section 2(60) of CA 2013 - it is evident that the statutory prescription is generic except with regard to ....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 340 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Validity of action of the 3rd respondent-the Registrar of Companies in ordering inspection through the impugned notice - inspection of books and documents of the Company by an Inspector - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the complaint is lodged by a person (4th respondent) who has been a director of the Company alleging oppression and mismanagement of the affairs of the Company besides questioning his removal as director of the Company unceremoniously, not noticing him of the annual general body meetings for three consecutive years, which according to the 2nd petitioner itself is made a ground for removal from the post of director of the Company, which the 4th respondent refutes and states that there was no annual general body conducted at all and the question of absenting himself on such occasions does not arise, are all matters to be ex....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 306 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Summon of accused to face trial for the offences punishable u/s 129 of Companies Act - HELD THAT:- From the very perusal of impugned summoning order it is apparent that the summoning has been made u/s 129 of Companies Act but neither the name of the accused has been given nor their parentage has been given nor the specific offence in which they been summoned is given. The complaint was with prayer for summoning accused persons for offences punishable u/s 129 of the Companies Act for making defiance of provisions of Section 129 of Companies Act and penal clause is there in Companies Act u/s 129(7) for making defiance against the provisions of section 129 of the Companies Act regarding financial statement. Hence request was made for making summoning of accused for offences punishable u/s 129(7) of the Act and it was with penal liability u/s....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 231 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - short grievance of the Petitioner, who is an allotee of a flat in the project of Respondent No. 1, is that his application, under rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, has not been taken up by the NCLAT, and his claims have not been considered by the IRP - HELD THAT:- Irrespective of whether the Petitioner is an allottee or not, and whether the IRP issued notice to them or not, there can be no doubt that the Petitioner being an allottee would have to be heard by the NCLAT, before the settlement is finalised. For the said purpose, the Petitioner’s application, that has been filed before the NCLAT, ought to be heard at an early date, in order to ensure that before finalizing the terms of settlement and resolution plan, all allottees are heard and their grievances are properly addressed. Accordingly, in terms of t....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 18 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Restoration of names in the Register of Companies - sub-section (5) of Section 248 of Companies Act, 2013 - opportunity of being heard not given - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is well established principle that no person shall be condemned unheard. Here, the petitioners-companies are registered in the year 2010. When such being the case, it is the duty of the Registrar to examine as to whether the petitioners-companies have any valid legal defence for the purpose of sub-Section (5) of Section 248 of the Act. Sub Section (5) is very clear that before publication in the Official Gazette about the striking off the name of company, notice has to be issued to the company and thereafter on the basis of the reply, the Registrar can pass an order, but, before passing an order, the grounds given or defence taken in t....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 1089 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Benefit of ‘LLP Settlement Scheme, 2020’ dated 04.03.2020 read with the subsequent modification thereto vide Circular dated 30.03.2020 - Section 460 of the Companies Act, 2013 - plea of the petitioner(s) in the present applications is that they have been denied the benefit of the Scheme only on the ground that they uploaded the forms pursuant to the order dated 06.12.2018 of this Court - HELD THAT:- This, in my opinion, cannot be a valid ground for denying the benefit of the Scheme to the petitioners. The petitioner(s) cannot be denied the benefit of the Scheme as such denial would be totally arbitrary and unreasonable. The petitioner(s) cannot be put in a position worse than those who never challenged the position prevailing before the announcement of the Scheme, before this Court. It is held that the petitioner(s) are entitl....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 1088 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Companies Fresh Start Scheme (CFSS) 2020 - Defaulting company - Publication of the name of the Petitioner in the list of disqualified directors - Disqualification as a director under Section 164 of the Companies Act, 2013 - alleged non-compliance by DCDPL in filing its returns from 2014-2017. Whether the DIN of the Petitioner is liable to be activated for the two companies ABMR and DCD Grand? - HELD THAT:- The DIN of the Petitioner herein was deactivated and he was disqualified prior to the proviso to Section 167(1)(a) taking effect. Thus, qua ABMR and DCD Grand, the Petitioner’s disqualification is not sustainable. Whether the Petitioner can be considered as a Director of DCDPL? - HELD THAT:- The ROC’s stand that the shareholders can nominate a new director and approval for the same can be sought, would not be an answer, as t....... + More
........
|
