Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing Anup Kumar Agarwal & Anr vs Crystal Thermotech Ltd. & Others on 24 January, 2017

Yamini Bipinchandra Shah & Ors vs Trimbak Estates Pvt Ltd & Ors on 24 June, 2020

and "Rajahmundry Electric supply corporation Ltd.," held that the said principle, which was made applicable in the case of winding up, will not be applicable where applicant alleges oppression and mismanagement in bringing down the shareholding below 1/10 th of the total share of the company. This Court further observed that if the principles laid down by Supreme Court in "Bhagwati Developers Pvt. Ltd." and "Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Ltd.," which related to cases of winding up, is made applicable in the case of alleged 'oppression and mismanagement' bringing down the minimum requirement of shareholding, then the applicant(s) will be remediless. This Court thereby held that the crucial date for determination of requirements under Section 399 will be the date the alleged date of Company Appeal (AT) No. 250 of 2018 -16- oppression and mismanagement in bringing down the shareholding below 1/10th of the total shareholding of the Company took place."
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sudhir John Horo vs Ideaworks Design & Strategy Private ... on 28 August, 2023

Company Appeal (AT) No. 98 of 2021 38 of 44 xxxiii) With respect to the contents of Ground 9(I) of the Appeal, it is denied that the Impugned Order is unreasonable or unsustainable. It is denied that the Hon'ble NCLT has not appreciated the settled position of law. xxxiv) With respect to the contents of Ground 9(J) of the Appeal, it is respectfully submitted that the decision of this Hon'ble Tribunal in Anup Kumar Agarwal & Ors. v. Crystal Thermotech & Ors., (2017) 204 Comp Cas 141 is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. It is submitted that this decision dealt with a case where the shareholding of the petitioner had been reduced below the threshold limit on account of further allotment of shares by the majority shareholders. Such further allotment of shares was alleged to be an act of oppression. The facts in this case show that the shareholding of the petitioner therein was reduced through the conduct of the affairs of the company rather than through private action or transaction; company was the instrumentality of oppression by majority. In these facts, this Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in upholding the maintainability of the petition. In contrast in the present case, so far as the transfer of shares is concerned, there was no involvement or engagement of the Company. xxxv) With respect to the contents of Grounds 9(K) and 9(L) of the Appeal, it is denied that the Impugned Order is unreasonable or unsustainable. It is submitted that the Impugned Order duly records and deals with the arguments and submissions of the parties.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Montreaux Resorts Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Ascot Hotel & Resorts Ltd. & Ors on 2 November, 2018

"A shareholder/member or group of shareholder/members without and notice or information cannot visualize or presume that his/their share(s) will be brought down to their disadvantage, which amounts to oppression and mismanagement. On such anticipation or presumption no petition under Section 397 or 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 can be filed. Such aggrieved shareholder(s)/member(s) can file the petitioner under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 only after cause of action has taken place. If that be so, the day on which a petitioner under Section 397 and 398 is filed by Company Appeal (AT) No.220 of 2017 15 a shareholder/member, whose shareholding has been brought down below the requirement of having an aggregate of 10% out of the total shareholding, will be deprived to avail remedy under Section 387 and Section 398, without their fault. He will be remediless. In 'Bhagwati Developers Pvt Ltd' and 'Rajahmundry Electric Supply Ltd' aforesaid issue was not raised nor decided. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the law laid down by Supreme Court in 'Bhagwati Developers Pvt Ltd' and 'Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Ltd' are not applicable in the case where an applicant alleges 'oppression and mismanagement' in bringing down his shareholding below the requirement of 1/10th of the total shareholding of the company, thereby depreived him of his right to sue.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

M/S. Therm Flow Engineers Private ... vs Mr. Bhavesh Narumalani & Anr on 22 December, 2017

In Anup Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Crystal Thermotech Ltd. & Ors. [Company Appeal(AT) No. 17 of 2016], this Appellate Tribunal considered the crucial date when an applicant is required to satisfy the requirements under Section 399 of the Companies Act, 2013 so as to make the requirement of having an aggregate of 1/ 10th of share out of the total shareholding of the company, if the appellant alleges oppression in bringing down his shareholding. In the said case, this Appellate Tribunal noticed the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in "Bhagwati Developers Private Limited" and "Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Ltd.," wherein the Apex Court held that the requirement of 1/ 10th of holding of the total share is to be examined in the light of whether such a number is maintained on the actual date of presentation of the company petition in the court (emphasis added). This Court while discussing the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Bhagwati Developers Private Limited" and "Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Ltd." held that the said principle, which was made Company Appeals (AT) Nos. 159 & 198 of 2017 11 applicable in the case of winding up, will not be applicable where applicant alleges oppression and mismanagement in bringing down the shareholding below 1/ 10th of the total share of the company. This Appellate Tribunal further observed that if the principles laid down by Supreme Court in "Bhagwati Developers Private Limited" and "Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Ltd.," which related to cases of winding up, is made applicable in the case of alleged 'oppression and mismanagement' in bringing down the minimum requirement of shareholding, then the applicant (s) will be remediless. This Appellate Tribunal thereby held that the crucial date for determination of requirements under Section 399 will be the date the alleged date of oppression and mismanagement in bringing down the shareholding below 1/ 10th of the total shareholding of the company took place.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1