Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.91 seconds)
Documents citing R.N. Jalan vs Deccan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 23 November, 1989

Anand Kumar Saigal vs Manu Properties (P.) Ltd. on 15 March, 2001

In support of this submission reliance had been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nanalal Zaver v. The Bombay Life Assurance Company (AIR) 1950SC l72;Piercyv.S. Mills and Company (1980) 19 All ER page 313; R.N. Jalan v. Dcccan Enterprises (P.) Ltd. 1992 Vol. 78 Company Cases page 417, C.N. Settiv. Hillock Hotels (P.) Ltd. (2000) (1) Comp. LJ. 181 (AP).
Company Law Board Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Oswal vs Panchsheel Textiles Manufacturing & ... on 25 February, 2002

28. The main complaint of the petitioner in relation to the allotment of 10,000 shares is that it had been done behind his back and without his consent and he came to know of the allotment only in August 2001, on search of ROC records. He also alleges that the trust and confidence that he had reposed in fourth respondent had been belied and the fourth respondent has acted in a manner oppressive to the petitioner by allotting 10,000 shares to the respondent's group. It is a case wherein, as seen from paragraphs 30 to 33 of the reply, the fourth respondent does not deny that the shares were issued/allotted, only with a view to keep control of the company with him but he claims that it was with the consent and the knowledge of the petitioner. Since there is an admission that the shares were issued only for the purpose of getting control over the company, all issues as to whether, the company needed funds, whether the respondents had acted in breach of their fiduciary duties, and whether the majority was converted into a minority, etc., become irrelevant as also the cases cited by the learned counsel in this regard, viz., Hathimal Pincha's case (supra) R.N. Jalan's case (supra) Gluco Series Private Limited case (supra). Since, the respondents claim that the allotment was made with the consent and knowledge of the petitioner, we have to only examine, in view of the denial of the petitioner, as to whether the circumstances establish that the allotment had been done with the knowledge and consent of the petitioner.
Company Law Board Cites 18 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Dipak G. Mehta And Ors. vs Anupar Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. And ... on 22 March, 1999

In this connection it is worthwhile referring to the decision of R.N. Jalan v. Deccan Enterprises (P.) Ltd. [1992] 75 Comp Cas 417, 438 wherein the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that change in the pattern of shareholding and subsequent changes in the board of directors would prejudicially affect the interest of the shareholders and accordingly, since the company was running profitably, the court appointed an administrator to manage the company by superseding the board. Therefore, we are of the view that the grounds on which the petition has been filed fully merit winding up of the company on the just and equitable ground in these Section 397/398 proceedings and that winding up of the company is prejudicial to the interest of the shareholders.
Company Law Board Cites 21 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1