9911796707
| TMI General Search |
|
Advanced Search Options
Showing 41 to 60 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) |
|
2003 (6) TMI 340 - HIGH COURT OF PATNA The High Court dismissed the Chairman's claim for salary, allowances, and facilities equivalent to Ministers of State, ruling that entitlement is subject to specific notifications and governed by the Corporation's Articles of Association. The Court clarified that liability for employees rests with the Corporation, not the State Government, and directed the petitioner to pursue claims against the Corporation, which had already rejected the claim. The judgment found no merit in the petition, with no costs awarded, advising the petitioner to address the claim during the Corporation's liquidation proceedings.
1996 (7) TMI 462 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS The High Court, acting as the Company Court, clarified that jurisdiction under the Companies Act does not automatically exclude Civil Courts unless expressly stated. The Court dismissed a petition seeking relief for alleged illegal removal of a director, emphasizing that the Act does not bar Civil Courts from adjudicating on matters not exclusively under the Company Court's purview. The judgment highlighted the importance of specific statutory provisions to limit Civil Courts' jurisdiction in company-related disputes, allowing the petitioner to pursue redress in the Civil Court.
1993 (12) TMI 200 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the injunction order, and dismissed the motion, emphasizing that the grant of injunction was unwarranted based on the circumstances and legal interpretation presented. The judgment clarified the correct interpretation of the Supreme Court order regarding insolvency proceedings, rejected the application of Companies Act provisions to the appellant's case, and ruled in favor of the appellant.
1975 (12) TMI 186 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT The court ruled in favor of the defendant petitioner, setting aside the earlier order and declaring that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The court held that the matters raised fell within the purview of the Companies Act, emphasizing that only the court specified in Section 10 of the Act had jurisdiction over such issues. The plaintiff was directed to present the case to the appropriate court if desired, with no costs awarded.
2021 (2) TMI 521 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) upheld the appointment of the Provisional Liquidator due to adverse findings against the Respondent Company. The Tribunal justified the appointment under the Companies Act, 2013, citing urgency and a prima facie case of fraud. The Appellant's arguments regarding procedural irregularities were considered, and the Tribunal directed the Appellant to file an application for participation in the main petition. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the Provisional Liquidator's appointment to prevent further misuse of company assets and protect stakeholders' interests, disposing of the appeal while allowing the Appellant to present their case.
2015 (7) TMI 337 - COMPANY LAW BOARD CHENNAI The Bench found the petition maintainable under Section 614 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner's resignation as a director was deemed valid and effective from the date of submission, irrespective of pending liabilities. The company was directed to file Form 32 within 15 days to record the resignation. The petitioner's liability for company debts was acknowledged but separated from the filing obligation. The petition was ordered and disposed of accordingly.
1992 (3) TMI 347 - Bombay High Court The High Court upheld the decision that the City Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain suits regarding directorship issues in a company, directing the plaintiffs to present their claims to the High Court. It clarified that the Companies Act does not expressly exclude the jurisdiction of Civil Courts unless specific provisions dictate otherwise. The High Court emphasized that the suits should be tried by the City Civil Court based on valuation, rejecting arguments that the Companies Act mandates exclusive High Court jurisdiction in such matters.
2020 (10) TMI 340 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT The court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the legality of the inspection ordered under Section 206 and the validity of the summons issued under Section 207(3)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013 by the Registrar of Companies. The court found the actions taken by the ROC to investigate allegations of mismanagement and fraudulent activities within the company were valid and within statutory powers. Additionally, the court determined that the ROC's parallel proceedings were permissible despite similar issues pending before the NCLT, as the scope and purpose of the inquiries differed.
2012 (6) TMI 496 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY The court upheld the validity of the Board Meetings held on 6th August 2009 and 9th October 2009, as well as the EGM held on 31st August 2009. The Plaintiff's objections regarding quorum and the appointment of Defendant No. 12 were dismissed. The court denied the Plaintiff's request for a general injunction against the company's business operations, emphasizing the need for the company to function as a going concern.
2008 (5) TMI 736 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, CHENNAI The Company Law Board (CLB) dismissed the petitioner's claims of oppression and mismanagement, upheld the validity of meetings and resolutions, and directed the petitioner to exit the company by selling its shares to the second respondent. The CLB found that the second respondent's efforts to revive the company justified the petitioner's exit, emphasizing the company's survival as the paramount interest.
1983 (3) TMI 229 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA The court dismissed the petition for winding up the company, citing lack of substantial evidence to support allegations of mismanagement and oppression of minority shareholders. The petitioner, a former director, failed to prove the company's loss due to mismanagement. The court emphasized the need for concrete evidence to establish grounds for winding up and highlighted the petitioner's history of settling disputes out of court. The lack of evidence and the petitioner's inability to demonstrate a deadlock in management led to the rejection of the petition, with no order as to costs.
2022 (1) TMI 463 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOCHI BENCH The Tribunal declared the appointments of certain directors invalid due to statutory non-compliance, ordering their immediate removal. A director's resignation was deemed effective from the date of submission to the company, leading to her removal. Disqualification of directors was deferred pending a regulatory report, while others were ordered to vacate their positions for violations. An inquiry into mismanagement was directed, and the conduct of Annual General Meetings was postponed. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs was tasked with further investigation. The application was partially allowed, resulting in removals, disqualifications, and investigative directions.
2016 (2) TMI 583 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT The court held that the amendment to Section 196(3)(a) of the Companies Act does not apply retrospectively but prospectively, affecting Managing Directors who turn 70 after the amendment. The disqualification operates automatically upon a Managing Director reaching 70 unless a special resolution is passed. The court emphasized the legislative intent to protect shareholders' interests and corporate governance. The appeal was allowed, restraining the respondent from continuing as Chairman and Managing Director. The decision clarified the application of the disqualification criteria and affirmed the importance of such provisions in maintaining public confidence in corporate management.
2014 (2) TMI 1360 - DELHI HIGH COURT The court found that the applicant, who had resigned as a director before the relevant date, was not liable for the company's unrecovered receivables. The court clarified that a director's resignation is effective upon communication and does not require acceptance or filing with the Registrar. As the applicant had resigned before the relevant date, he was not obligated to file a complete Statement of Affairs. The court allowed the applicant's claim, directing the Provisional Liquidator to submit a fresh status report within eight weeks and scheduled further hearing for 30.04.2014.
2009 (2) TMI 820 - DELHI HIGH COURT The Court dismissed the suit challenging the Board resolution seeking nullity and permanent injunction, finding it frivolous and lacking legal basis. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay heavy costs of &8377; 50,000/- to the defendants, with the Court deeming the suit as motivated by self-interest and without proper rights to retain possession of the company's property. The Court concluded that the resolution was not in violation of the Companies Act, and the plaintiffs' actions were unwarranted.
2004 (11) TMI 625 - COMPANY LAW BOARD PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI The CLB ruled that the limitation period did not apply, allowing the petition to proceed. It determined that the company functioned as a family partnership, with a continuous cause of action from the 1988 Board resolution. The CLB noted the respondents' failure to provide evidence for not completing share allotment formalities and emphasized that the Limitation Act, 1963, does not apply to quasi-judicial tribunals. Consequently, the petition was deemed maintainable, and the issue of limitation was resolved in favor of the petitioner, highlighting that respondents could not benefit from their own omissions.
1998 (1) TMI 397 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI The court dismissed the application for an injunction, ruling that the plaintiff failed to prove a prima facie case of fraud or manipulation. It affirmed the validity of the Board meeting and financial statements, supporting the reference to BIFR. The case was adjourned sine die, allowing parties to seek revival if needed.
1992 (8) TMI 294 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT The court allowed the appeal and set aside the temporary injunction restraining the defendants from implementing resolutions removing the plaintiff as a director. It held that the plaintiff's absence from board meetings did not automatically create a vacancy, and the resolutions required interpretation under the Companies Act. The court determined that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute concerning the plaintiff's directorship removal. The broad scope of the temporary injunction was found to significantly impact the company's operations, leading to its removal. Each party was directed to bear its own costs in the appeal.
1988 (1) TMI 277 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous judgment against the appellant. It was determined that the appellant's appointment as a director was valid and would continue indefinitely as long as the companies remained private entities. The termination of the appellant's role as managing director did not affect his status as a director. The amalgamation did not impact the appellant's directorship, and the necessity of the company's presence as a party in the suit was deemed not essential at the interim stage. The appellant was to continue as a director until the next annual general meeting, and costs were to be determined in the ongoing suit.
1983 (10) TMI 224 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI The court acquitted both accused individuals in a case under section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 1956. The complaint against them, regarding the failure to file the statement of affairs of a company in liquidation, lacked substantiation of their directorship at the relevant time. The court found no evidence of their directorship status during the winding-up order, leading to their acquittal. Additionally, one accused was not validly elected as a director, and the other's claim of technical directorship lacked proof. The court accepted the spoiled company records and unhelpful statement of affairs as a reasonable excuse for non-compliance, resulting in the dismissal of the complaint.
|
