TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Company Law Board dated May 17, 1999, in Company Petitions Nos. 38 of 1992 and 37 of 1993. By the order under appeal, the Company Law Board refused to order investigation into the affairs of the company namely, Graphic Machinery and Appliances Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the said company") as was sought for in C.P. No. 38 of 1992. However, in so far as C.P. No. 37 of 1993 is concern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y object of the orders in such matters is to resolve the disputes between the parties and if the Company Law Board was of the opinion, as it was, that the parties do not see eye to eye, the proper order to be passed in the matter would have been to permit the majority shareholder to buy out the shares of the minority shareholder. On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that the orders pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-opposition. The appellant has not co-operated in the matter of determining the face value of the shares for which the valuer had been appointed with the intention of settling the dispute between the parties. The accounts of the company were also not finalised. An administrator was appointed pursuant to an order of the Company Law Board who sought for his release as the appellant refused to co-op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
