Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.22 seconds)
Documents citing Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs Gujarat Gas Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 24 October, 1997

G.Nirmal Kumar Bafna vs Reliance Industries Ltd on 30 April, 2021

27. The Gujarat High Court in the Judgement reported in (1999) 97 CompCas 301 – Mafatlal Industries Ltd., Vs. Gujarat Gas Co. Ltd. and others, while answering the issue as to whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in respect of prayers seeking permanent injunction and temporary injunction against the Company from registering transfer of shares had returned a finding that this prayer falls within the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board under Section 111 and 111 A. Therefore by implication, the 20/24 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.No.106 of 2008 jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - P T Asha - Full Document

Sanmukhlal Rangildas Ghael vs Reliance Petroleum Ltd. on 18 January, 2001

In the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra) it has been held that the provisions of sections 111 and 111A, is not jurisdiction of merely a summary nature but includes within its compass power to hold full-fledged enquiry in respect of title to shares and to decide any question which it considers necessary or expedient to decide in connection with the application for rectification. The Court has also held that the remedies provided by the provisions of section 111A read with section 111 are a complete code in so far as any dispute about non-compliance with or non-observance of the provisions of the Act, is concerned and thus the scope under section 111A is wide enough and this Board is competent to adjudicate upon any dispute relating to the transfer of shares or the rectification of the register of members. The counsel further invited our attention to the other cases referred by him and submitted that procedure is required to be followed by the company in respect of giving prior notice as is required under the law or articles of association of the company, so also a resolution is required to be passed for such forfeiture which in this case has not been done by the company. He further submitted that the power to issue further shares is exercised by the directors not for the benefit of the company and it is exercised simply and solely for the purpose of consolidating their voting power to the exclusion of existing majority shareholders. He submitted that in the present case the board of directors by not extending the date of exercising the option have acted with the sole intention to get these shares allotted to themselves.
Company Law Board Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hillcrest Realty Sdn. Bhd. vs Hotel Queen Road Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 31 January, 2006

43. It is a settled law, as decided in the cases cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and also decided in many other cases, that directors cannot use their power to issue/allot shares with the sole object of enhancing their own holdings or with the view to convert a majority into a minority. In this case, the respondents group, even at the time of acquiring the Hotel, held more than 99% shares in the equity capital of the company and even after the impugned allotments, the same group holds practically the same percentage of the shares. Therefore, the cases cited by the petitioners have no application in the present case, in so far as the illegality in the issue/allotment of shares, it is a settled law as propounded by the Supreme Court in Needle Industries case that if the issue of further shares is in the interest of the company and in the process if directors are also benefited, it cannot be considered to be an act of oppression. In the present case, one noteworthy aspect in so far the allegation relating to allotment of shares is concerned is that, the petitioners have not challenged the same on the ground that the company was not in need of funds and as such there was no need to issue further shares. Their realization that the company was in need of funds is evident from the fact that in the reliefs sought in the petition, while seeking for cancellation of the issue/allotment of shares, they have not sought for refund of the amount invested in the impugned shares to those to whom the shares were allotted, but have sought for treating the amount as unsecured loans from these persons. The respondents have given copies of the Bank statements of the company to the petitioners to evidence the receipt of money from the respondents as consideration for the shares allotted to them. However, in the written submission, the petitioners have alleged that the 2nd respondent did not bring in cash for the allotment made to him but the same was adjusted against his loan account to the company. Since this allegation is only in the written submission to which the respondents did not have any opportunity of rebuttal, I am unable to give any finding. Whether, by these allotments, the respondents have got undue benefits at the cost of the petitioners is an issue for consideration. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents, the 1st petitioner, being only a preference shareholder, cannot allege oppression in the matter of allotment of equity shares. As far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, he could complain of oppression only on the ground that he was not allotted proportionate shares.
Company Law Board Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sureshchadra V. Parekh vs H.D.F.C. Ltd. on 13 March, 2002

In support of the same, she has also relied upon the judgment reported in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Gas Company Ltd. this Court has considered the jurisdiction conferred on the Company Court under Section 155 of the Companies Act which now inheres in the Company Law Board under the provisions of Secs. III and IIIA of the Act is not jurisdiction of merely a summary nature as the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board includes within its compass power to hold a full-fledged enquiry in respect of the title to shares and to decide any question which it considers necessary or expedient to decide in connection with the application for rectification.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1