9911796707
| TMI General Search |
|
Advanced Search Options
Showing 21 to 40 of 4170 Records Search Text: section 283 companies act |
| Search Results |
| Acts / Rules (13) Articles (16) Case-Laws (4013) Circulars (23) Forum (4) Highlights (1) Manuals (2) News (12) Notifications (86) |
|
1995 (8) TMI 233 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA The High Court allowed the civil miscellaneous appeal, setting aside the lower court's order and dismissing LA. No. 4552 of 1994. The court concluded that the allegations of invalid Board meetings, lack of quorum, non-disclosure of interest, and disqualification of directors were untenable. The decisions taken at the Board meetings were upheld as valid, and the injunction against implementing these decisions was lifted.
2017 (11) TMI 781 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI The Tribunal found the Respondents' actions oppressive and prejudicial to the Petitioners. It declared the increase in authorized share capital, allotment of shares to an outsider, notice violations, director appointments/removals, and alteration of Articles invalid. The Tribunal ordered P1 to take over management, directed a forensic audit, mandated fair valuation for exiting directors, and required refund of funds infused by R5. The Company Petition was disposed of with these directives.
2018 (9) TMI 1608 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI The Tribunal dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner was not a member of the company due to the forfeiture of his shares for non-payment. As a result, he lacked standing to invoke Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The decision did not impact the petitioner's police complaint, and no costs were awarded.
2007 (5) TMI 684 - COMPANY LAW BOARD PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI The Board granted the petitioner's prayers, directing the respondent company to implement the orders forthwith. The petition was disposed of with all interim orders vacated and no order as to costs. The Board recognized the petitioner's entitlement to 50% shareholding and declared the increase and allotment of shares in March 2003 null and void due to continuous oppression and illegal acts by the respondents.
2004 (3) TMI 796 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI The resolution passed in the Extraordinary General Meeting was set aside, and the petitioner and his son were restored to their directorship positions. The petitioner was given the option to exit the company with a valuation of his shares based on the balance sheet. The petition was disposed of with no orders as to costs.
2015 (11) TMI 1702 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, CHENNAI The court dismissed the petition as the petitioner was found to have transferred his shares and ceased to be a shareholder, thus lacking the standing to file the petition. The court held that the petitioner did not meet the qualifications under Section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956, to maintain the petition. Consequently, the petition was deemed not maintainable, interim orders were vacated, pending applications were disposed of, and no costs were awarded.
1981 (2) TMI 165 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS The Sub-Court, Tiruchirapalli, overturned the district munsif's decision in a case involving a dispute over directorship in a company. The court found discrepancies in meeting dates and notice receipt, concluding that the plaintiff remained a director. However, during the second appeal, it was established that the plaintiff ceased to be a director post a subsequent annual general meeting where he was not re-elected. The court emphasized the importance of adapting decrees based on evolving circumstances and ruled in favor of the defendants, indicating no costs to be awarded.
2022 (11) TMI 1011 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI The Appellate Tribunal overturned the Tribunal's decision, affirming the validity of the Board's cancellation of shares and the cessation of the Petitioners as Directors due to non-attendance at meetings. It upheld the alterations to the Articles of Association, dismissing the directions for appointing additional Directors and a Chairman. The Company Petition was dismissed.
2012 (10) TMI 460 - DELHI HIGH COURT The Court granted sanction to the Scheme of Amalgamation under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. The order mandated compliance with statutory requirements, including filing with the Registrar of Companies within 30 days. Transfer of undertakings, property, rights, and liabilities to the Transferee Company was approved. No exemption from stamp duty or taxes was granted. The Petitioners agreed to deposit a sum in the Official Liquidator's fund voluntarily. The petition was allowed as per the terms mentioned, with no objections from any party and approval from shareholders and creditors.
1994 (5) TMI 270 - Company Law Board The court found in favor of the petitioners, declaring the board and general body meetings held from April 29, 1991, as invalid due to fabrication of notices and minutes. The vacation of office of the petitioners as directors was not substantiated. The shifting of the registered office and unauthorized allotment of additional shares were deemed acts of mismanagement. The court ordered the purchase of petitioners' shares by respondents, with payment at a determined value and interest. Shares cannot be transferred until final payment, with further reliefs available if respondents fail to comply.
2018 (7) TMI 459 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI The NCLT found in favor of the Petitioners on various issues, including the validity of amendments curing technical defects, the binding nature of the Letter of Intent and draft Shareholders Agreement, entitlement to file a petition under Sections 397 and 398 without arbitration, and the non-provision of share certificates being oppressive. The NCLT invalidated certain actions such as the issue of equity shares and convertible debentures without proper notice and the removal of a director. The Appellate Tribunal ordered the auditing of accounts, assessment of fair value of shares, restoration of shareholding status, and set aside disputed allotments and resolutions, awarding costs to the Appellants.
2017 (10) TMI 359 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD The Tribunal dismissed the petition, ruling in favor of the respondents. The petitioner's removal from directorship was deemed lawful, AGM 2010 and subsequent meetings were held validly, share allotments were legal, and the petitioner was eligible to file the petition. Proper notices were given, and the respondents' actions were considered bona fide. The petitioner's reliefs were denied, and costs of ?50,000 were awarded to the respondents.
1987 (1) TMI 433 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the resolution dated May 8, 1981. The appellants were offered the option to sell their shares to respondents Nos. 1 to 5 at the prevailing market rate. The court found no evidence of mismanagement and concluded that no case of oppression or mismanagement was made out against the respondents.
2009 (5) TMI 987 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI The petitioner, unlawfully removed as a director under Section 283(1)(g) of the Companies Act, 1956, due to oppressive conduct by the respondents, had their directorship reinstated by the Chairman. Despite acknowledging the strained relationship among the parties, the Chairman proposed a share purchase arrangement to resolve the dispute, directing the respondents to buy out the petitioner's shares at a fair value determined by an independent valuer. The case was concluded without costs, emphasizing the importance of a fair resolution for the company and its shareholders.
2008 (1) TMI 615 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS The court dismissed the applications seeking interim injunctions, setting aside the sale of property, and impleading petitioners as respondents. The court vacated the interim injunction granted and highlighted the limited scope of Section 237 of the Companies Act, 1956, emphasizing proper authorization in company transactions.
2001 (11) TMI 959 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH The Court held that the Company Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application challenging a notice for forfeiture of shares and vacating office by a director. It emphasized that statutory disqualification under section 283(1)(f) falls within the Company Court's purview. The Court did not address the Civil Court's jurisdiction but affirmed the Company Court's competence. The matter was referred back for further consideration, including under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, with costs to be determined later.
2018 (7) TMI 1397 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI The court dismissed the company petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioners. The issues raised did not fall within the ambit of Section 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, and the actions of the majority shareholders and the Board were not oppressive or prejudicial to the petitioners.
2017 (5) TMI 1226 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA The Tribunal set aside the removal of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 from the Board of Directors and declared the appointments of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 as additional Directors illegal and void. The Tribunal directed the respondents to restore the petitioners to their original positions as Directors of the company and to cancel the appointments of respondent Nos. 3 to 5. The Company Petition was allowed and disposed of, with no order as to costs.
2020 (12) TMI 419 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCH The Tribunal declared the cancellation of 3,32,440 shares held by the 1st petitioner as invalid and ordered their restoration. The removal of petitioners from directorship was deemed oppressive and invalid, with the Form-32 for their removal declared illegal. Amendments to the Articles of Association entrenching the position of R2 were ordered to be deleted. While most allegations of mismanagement were not upheld, the respondents' conduct was found oppressive. The Tribunal directed rectification of the Register of Members, restoration of shares, deletion of specified clauses, appointment of additional directors, and the implementation of orders by a Chairman for six months.
2012 (8) TMI 1091 - MADRAS HIGH COURT The District Munsif Court was held to have jurisdiction to entertain suits related to the enforcement of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) as the reliefs sought did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Company Court. The Court emphasized that civil courts have jurisdiction over civil suits unless expressly excluded by law, citing various judgments to support this principle. The applicability of Section 10GB of the Companies Act, 1956, was also addressed, clarifying that civil courts retain authority unless expressly barred by statute. The civil revision petitions were dismissed, affirming the District Munsif Court's jurisdiction over the suits.
|
