Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (1.37 seconds)
Documents citing Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Tata Sons Ltd. & Ors on 18 December, 2019

Adesh Gupta & Ors vs Liberty Shoes Limited & Ors on 20 September, 2024

244. While the NCLAT in the Cyrus Investments (supra) case did hold that the merits of the case should not be considered at the waiver stage, but this does not preclude the NCLT from determining whether the Petition falls within the ambit of Sections 241 and 244. We note that in the instant case, the waiver was refused based on the finding that the Petitioner has no prima facie case as the primary complaint in the petition relates to the directorship of the Petitioner, and hence the complaint is directorial.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashwani Khushaldas Banker & Anr vs Hitesh Chhagganalal Ambalia & Ors on 14 December, 2023

155. In this background, it was repeatedly argued both before NCLAT and before this Court that the objective of the litigation was not to have CPM reinstated, but only to set things right in the State of Denmark (of which CPM himself was the Premier for 4 years). But interestingly, NCLAT understood what the complainant companies and CPM actually wanted, though they attempted to camouflage their intentions with legal niceties. Therefore, despite there being no prayer for reinstatement of CPM either as a Director or as an Executive Chairman of Tata Sons, NCLAT directed [Cyrus Investments (P) Ltd. v. Tata Sons Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine NCLAT 858] the restoration of CPM as Executive Chairman of Tata Sons and as Director of Tata Companies for the rest of the tenure.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ambadi Investment Ltd vs M V Valli Murugappan on 19 September, 2022

78. To fortify this plea, the Learned Counsels for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 project a point that till such time, as the `First Waiver Application' was not permitted, the `Petition' under Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013, is not instituted in `Law', and falls back upon the Judgment of this `Tribunal' in Cyrus Investment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. V. Tata Sons Limited & Ors., 2017 SCC Online NCLAT 261 at paragraph 150, wherein it is observed as under:
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ambadi Investment Ltd vs M V Valli Murugappan on 19 September, 2022

78. To fortify this plea, the Learned Counsels for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 project a point that till such time, as the `First Waiver Application' was not permitted, the `Petition' under Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013, is not instituted in `Law', and falls back upon the Judgment of this `Tribunal' in Cyrus Investment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. V. Tata Sons Limited & Ors., 2017 SCC Online NCLAT 261 at paragraph 150, wherein it is observed as under:
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr. Garish Oberoi & Ors vs Hotel And Restaurant Federation ... on 21 February, 2023

Thus, while petitioner no. 1 is one single member of FHRAI, it actually represents at least 774 members from the Eastern Region and other petitioners are also members of FHRAI. FHRAI is a company, which does not have share capital and as per section 244(1) (b), not less than 1/5th of total members of FHRAI have the right to maintain a petition under sections 241-242. The proviso to section 244 (1) provides that NCLT may waive all or any of the requirements specified in clauses (a) and (b) of section 244 (1) so as to enable members to apply under section 241. We also look at the factors, which though not exhaustive, have been enumerated by this Tribunal in its judgment in the matter of Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. (supra). This Tribunal has held therein that if the Appellants are members of the company in question and have alleged oppression and mis-management, which is not a frivolous complaint, the Tribunal should examine whether similar allegation of oppression and mis-management was earlier made Page 25 of 50 by any other member or there is exceptional circumstance made out to grant waiver.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ambadi Investments Limited vs M.V.Valli Murugappan on 1 August, 2023

19. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondents, the company petition does not make out a case of oppression or mismanagement. The subsequent sale of the property had the approval of the Board and the valuation appears to be reasonable. No relief under section 402(f) could be granted since the CP is filed three months after the date of sale. In view of the finding recorded above, I do not think it necessary to go into details regarding the genuineness of the sale deed, undervaluation, etc. Those issues are beyond the purview of this CP, since a consideration of oppression and mismanagement arises only if the petitioners are found to be shareholders of the company. That issue being held against them the other issues pleaded in the CP do not arise. The petitioners had been indulging in forum shopping with some ulterior motive probably to extract money from respondents-M S P Plantations (supra). I have no hesitation to hold that they have approached this Bench with unclean hands and they are not entitled to any equitable reliefs. The attempt of the petitioners to re-agitate the concluded issues is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. The company petition is devoid of any merits. Accordingly issues (b) to (e) are found against the petitioners.''
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next