Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.91 seconds)
Documents citing Bagree Cereals (P.) Ltd. And Ors. vs Hanuman Prasad Bagri And Ors. on 18 August, 2000

Ruby General Hospital Limited And Ors. vs Dr. Kamal Kumar Dutta And Anr. on 31 March, 2005

In another case reported in Bagree Cereals P. Ltd. v. Hanuman Prasad Bagri [2001] 105 Comp Cas 465 (Cal) and contended that it is not always necessary to expressly record a finding that the facts warrant a just and equitable winding up of the company. In certain cases it is so obvious that it need not be specifically recorded. However, he submitted that in the present case, there was substantial compliance with the requirement of Section 397 of the said Act as would be evident from the judgment of the Company Law Board.
Calcutta High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 9 - P C Ghosh - Full Document

Lt. Cdr. D.K. Chatterji vs Rapti Supertronics Pvt. Ltd. And Col. ... on 9 July, 2002

9. As regards the refund of the short term loan given by the petitioner to the respondent company we find that besides the petitioner the respondent No. 2 and some other parties had also given unsecured loans. The company however, during the period of five months during which it operated incurred operating losses to the tune of more than 1.79 lakhs as evident from the statement of account filed before us. In view of the precarious financial position of the company it cannot be faulted if the loan amount has not been repaid. Besides remedy for the same does not lie in these proceedings before us. It was held by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Bagrees Cereals (P) Ltd v. H.P. Bagri (2001) 105 Com. Cases 465 that if debt remained outstanding from the company it would be unreasonable to ask for just and equitable winding up of the company, filing a suit or an application on the ground of company's liability to pay debts after service of statutory notice would be proper. That apart we do not find any correspondence from the side of the petitioner demanding the refund of the amount of the term loan or calling for share certificates. It may be noted that the petitioner was not a minority shareholder but was a 50% shareholder of the company and one of the directors as well. In case the Managing Director was not calling the Board Meetings the petitioner as the other director could himself convene the Board Meeting with notice to the respondent No. 2 and discuss the pending issues. So far as the submission with regard to the loan of Rs. 2 lakhs given to M/s Supertronics was concerned, in these proceedings the same cannot be considered as Supertronics is not a party before us besides no agreement has been placed to show that any amount advanced as loan to Supertronics would be converted as equity in the respondent company. As regards the contention that the respondent no.2 was siphoning of the funds of the company through the proprietary concern M/s Supertronics and also channeling the business of the respondent company to the said proprietary concern, we do not find the said allegation substantiated from the materials on record. The respondents have filed copies of the provisional balance sheet for the period 1.4.98 to 31.8.98 the Bank Book, Bank statement, Petty cash book and a statement of account of respondent company from 1.4.99 to 31.3.2001 and of M/s Supertronic from 1.4.99 to 31.3.2001. We have perused the same but have been unable to find the allegation of siphoning of funds by the respondent No.2 substantiated therefrom. Counsel for the petitioner has however, pointed out from the bank book and bank statements that there were four transactions between Apr. 1, 1998 to August 31, 1998 which shows a sum of Rs. 1,25.000 was transferred from Respondent company to Supertronics and Rs.25,000 was received by the respondent company from Supertronics, this according to the concerned counsel could not have happened if Supertronics had merged with respondent company. As far as this submission is concerned we find from the MOU dated 1.4.98 between Supertronics and respondent company that a sum of Rs. 17.5 lacs were to be transferred by the respondent company as consideration for the fixed assets, and the current assets would be listed as raw material as on 31.3.98 and the respondent company will pay the entire cost of current assets to Supertronics in suitable instalments within one year. Further the receivables of Supertronics as on 31.3.98 shall be transferred to the Bank account of the respondent company s soon as they are received. In view of the aforesaid agreement between the parties if the Bank statement shows transfer of any amount to Supertronics from respondent company or vice versa it cannot be leveled as siphoning of funds.
Company Law Board Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Shri D. Ramkishore And Ors. vs Vijayawada Share Brokers Limited And ... on 10 November, 2006

The Calcutta High Court in Bagree Cereals Private Limited v. Hanuman Prasad Bagri (2001) Vol. 105 CC 465 held that a petitioner to be successful under Section 397, must make out a case that the company's affairs are being conducted in a manner oppressive to any member or members; that the facts would justify the making of winding up order against the company under just and equitable clause and also establish that such winding up would unfairly prejudice him. It is imperative that the Court's opinion on these points must be formed in the affirmative before any order could be made under Section 397 of the Act. Otherwise, the application under Section 397 is liable to be dismissed.
Company Law Board Cites 47 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Caparo India Ltd. (U.K.) And Machino ... vs Caparo Maruti Limited And Ors. on 5 December, 2005

32. The Division Bench in that case further pointed out that the Single Judge had not attempted to determine as to whether allegations fall under the oppression head of Section 397 of under the mismanagement head of Section 398. Further discussion in the judgment would show that primarily the allegations were to found in the realm of Section 397 and there was no finding as to why winding up will be unjust to the complainants. This was the main reason for upsetting the judgment which approach is affirmed by the Supreme Court in appeal.
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 5 - A K Sikri - Full Document

G. Govindaraj vs Venture Graphics (P.) Ltd. on 19 January, 2007

Ltd. v. Hanuman Prasad Bagri [2001] 105 Comp. Cas. 465 (Cal.) in support of his plea that mere procedural irregularities automatically do not lead to the presumption against the respondents. He defended his right to argue on the maintainability of the appeal on the basis of Order 41 Rule 20 read with Section 141 CPC. He questioned the correctness of the claim of the appellants as regards the finding of the Company Law Board on signature. He stated that there was no material to hold the findings of the Company Law Board as perverse.
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 2 - C Venkataraman - Full Document

Arulvelu & Anr vs State Rep By Public Prosecutor & Anr on 7 October, 2009

26. The expression `perverse' has been dealt with in number of cases. In Gaya Din (Dead) through LRs. & Others v. Hanuman Prasad (Dead) through LRs. & Others (2001) 1 SCC 501 this Court observed that the expression `perverse' means that the findings of the subordinate authority are not supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 440 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Shri S. P. Sengupta & Ors on 29 August, 2013

"The expression 'perverse' has been dealt with in number of cases. In Gaya Din (Dead) through LRs. and Ors. v. Hanuman Prasad (Dead) through LRs. Ors. (2001) 1 SCC 501 this court observed that the expression 'perverse' means that the findings of the subordinate authority are not supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity."
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - T Uddin - Full Document
1   2 3 Next