Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Karnataka Theaters Limited Versus Mr. M. Ratnavarma Padival and Others

Recall of order - withdraw the application seeking amendment of the company petition and to agitate the matter before the Company Law Board - Held that:- In view of death of some of the respondents in the Company Petition, applications have been filed to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondents. Hence, there is some delay is disposing of the said applications. In the meantime, some of the share holders approached the Company Law Board alleging oppression and mismanagement. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y also, the respondents can agitate the matter before the Company Law Board with necessary application with regard to oppression and mismanagement. If any such application is filed, the same has to be considered by the Company Law Board and to take steps in accordance with law. No blanket permission has been granted to agitate the issue before the Company Law Board. The application has to be considered on its own merits. If there is delay in filing the application, it is for the Company Law Boar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o ground is made out to recall the order dated 27-03-2013. Accordingly, the C.A. is rejected. - CA.NO.1589/2013 in COP.NO.35/1987 - Dated:- 2-9-2016 - MR. B.MANOHAR, J. For The Appellant : Sri. S.S.Naganand, Sr. Adv. for M/s.Just Law, Advs For The Respondent : Sri. K.G.Raghavan, Sr. Adv for Sri.K.Arun Kumar, Adv for M/s. Crest Law Partners, Advs for R1, 7 & 8 ORDER This Company Application has been filed under Rules 6 and 9 of the Company Court Rules seeking to recall the order dated 27-03-2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

were passed contrary to the interest of the petitioner-Company. The said proceeding was challenged before the II Additional Civil Judge, Mangalore in O.S.No.125/1990. When the matter stood thus, the respondents herein filed Company Application No.919/2008 seeking for amendment of the Company Petition and add paragraphs No.44-A to 44-AT and also intended to seek the additional reliefs as 15(A) to 15(F) and also for such other reliefs. Some of the respondents in the Company Petition died. The app .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ein has not opposed the said memo, order has been passed on 27-03-2013 granting permission to the respondents herein to withdraw the said company application reserving liberty to them to raise such issue before the Company Law Board. The applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 27-03-2013 made in C.A.No.919/2008 filed this application seeking for recalling the said order. 3. Sri.S.S.Naganand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant contended that the order passed by this Court res .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

919/2008 before the Company Law Board does not arise. Under Order 23 of Code of Civil Procedure, at any time after the institution of a suit, the plain tiff may withdraw the suit or abandon a part of the claim, where the Court is satisfied that a suit must fail by rea son of any formal defect or that there are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject-matter of the suit or part of a claim. In the instant case, though the amendment application has bee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

respondent Nos.1, 7 and 8 argued in support of the order dated 27-3-2013 and contended that long after passing of the impugned order, the application has been filed invoking Rules 6 and 9 of the Company Court Rules which is not maintainable before this Court. No adverse order h as been passed against the applicant. The order passed by this Court is not prejudicial to the interest of the applicant. The respondents made an application for amendment of the company petition. That amendment applicati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y petition which was filed in the year 1987. In the amendment petition it was contended that since the respondents have failed to get an interim order in the company petition, in the 41st Annual General Body Meeting, some new resolution has been passed adverse to the interest of the Company. It was challenged in O.S.No.125/1990. In view of subsequent events, the respondents had filed an application seeking amendment of the Company Petition. In view of death of some of the respondents in the Comp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version