Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 69 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing Hanuman Prasad Bagri & Ors vs Bagress Cereals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 27 March, 2001

Shri G. Govindaraj And Smt. G. ... vs Venture Graphics Private Limited, Shri ... on 30 September, 2004

In order to be successful on the latter ground, the Supreme Court in Hanuman Prasad Bagri v. Bagress Cereals Pvt. Ltd. (supra), after considering the provisions of Section 397 held that "the petitioners have to make out a case for winding up of the company on just and equitable grounds. If the facts fall short of the case set out for winding up on just and equitable grounds, no relief can be granted to the petitioners." A careful consideration of the findings of the Supreme Court, suggests that in order to be successful on the ground specified in Section 397(2)(b), the petitioners have to make out a case (emphasis supplied) for winding up of the company on just and equitable grounds. The decision nowhere mandates the requirement that the petitioners have to plead that the facts would justify the making of a winding up order of the company on just and equitable grounds.
Company Law Board Cites 29 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Mrs. Saroj Hashmukh Patel And Ors. vs Kantilal Pranalal Patel And Ors. on 23 October, 2007

The fifth petitioner continues to be director and the termination of his directorship at the instance of the respondents has been restrained by an order dated 25.08.2006, whereas in Hanuman Prasad Bagri v. Bagree Cereals Private Limited (Supra) directorship the person aggrieved was already terminated and therefore, the fifth petitioner can invoke, in the existing facts, the jurisdiction of Section 397.
Company Law Board Cites 59 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Kamal Kumar Dutta & Anr vs Ruby General Hospital Ltd. & Ors on 11 August, 2006

In the case of Hanuman Prasad Bagri & Ors. vs. Bagress Cereals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2001) 4 SCC 420, their Lordships held that in order to grant relief under section 397, the petitioner should make out a case for winding up of the company on just and equitable ground and in that case, their Lordships held that illegal termination of the directorship of the petitioner was not such a ground to justify winding up of the company.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 98 - A K Mathur - Full Document

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

31. When a petition is filed under Section 397 of the Act alleging oppression, language of this provision clearly suggests that the petitioner has to make out a case for just and equitable winding up of a company. It is also to be established that although the facts are such if just and equitable winding up of the company is called for, order for winding up would unfairly prejudice the petitioner and, therefore, instead of having recourse to the winding up of the company under Section 433(f) of the Act, remedy under Section 397 is resorted to, to seek appropriate directions to remedy the situation created by the respondents/adversary group. Normally, if such a case is not made out, the court would not give relief under Section 397 of the Act. This is the position of law stated in the case of Bagree Cereals (P) Ltd and Ors v. Hanuman Prasad Bagri and Ors. reported as (2001) 105 Comp.Cas.465 which decision is upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Hanuman Prasad Bagri and Ors. v. Bagress Cereals Pvt.Ltd. and Ors. reported as . However, reading of the case of Needle Industries (India) Pvt.Ltd.
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 5 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Shri Chandrakant Kantilal Shah And Ors. vs National Refinery Private Limited And ... on 21 October, 2003

According to Shri Seervai, learned Counsel the provisions of Section 397 further contemplate that the facts would justify the making of a winding up order, on the ground that it is just and equitable that the company must be wound up, but a winding up order would unfairly prejudice the members. If the facts fall short of the case set out for winding up on just and equitable grounds no relief can be granted to the petitioners as held in Hanuman Prasad Bagri v. Bagress Cereals Pvt. Ltd.-(2001) 4 SCC 420; Thakur Hotel (Simla) Company Private Limited In. Re.- Vol.
Company Law Board Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. T.N. Raghunath And Smt. ... vs Lake Side Medical Centre Private ... on 2 March, 2006

The decisions in Hanuman Prasad Bagri v. Bagress Cereals Pvt. Ltd.; Shanti Prasad Jain v. kaling Tubes Ltd. and Hind Overseas Private Ltd. v. Raghunath Prasad Jhunjhunwalla (supra) reiterate the principle that the petitioners in a petition under Section 397 must make out a case for winding up of the company on just equitable grounds, failing which no relief can be granted to the petitioners.
Company Law Board Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

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

The Supreme Court in Haniimcin Prasad Bagri v. Bagress Cereals Private Limited (2001) Vol.105 CC 493 without considering the principles enunciated in Needles Case that the Court is not powerless, even if no case is made out under Section 397/398, to grant relief in favour of aggrieved shareholders, dismissed the company petition preferred under Section 397/398 and held that the petitioners must prove that the requirements of Section 397/398, failing which no relief can be granted by the Court. The Supreme Court further rejected the relief of sale of shares of the petitioners to the respondents at a value to be determined by a valuer.
Company Law Board Cites 47 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

A. Ravishankar Prasad, A. Sai ... vs Prasad Productions Private Limited And ... on 1 September, 2005

However, the Company with huge profits an4 surplus reserves, if it is to be wound up would unfairly prejudice the shareholders of the Company, which is one of the requirements of Section 397, as affirmed in Hanuman Prasad Bagri v. Bargress Gereals Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The conduct of the petitioners, as reflected in the proceedings before this Board and in other civil and criminal litigations in other courts, in my considered view, would not disentitle them from enforcing their legal rights for further issue of shares in the Company.
Company Law Board Cites 52 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Dr. S. Mangalam Srinivasan vs Mani Forgings Private Limited, Mrs. ... on 20 October, 2004

The Supreme Court in Hanuman Prasad Bagri v. Bagress Cereals Pvt. Ltd., after considering the provisions of Section 397 held that "the petitioners have to make out a case for winding up of the company on just and equitable grounds. If the facts fall short of the case set out for winding up on just and equitable grounds, no relief can be granted to the petitioners." A careful consideration of the findings of the Supreme Court, suggests that in order to be successful on the ground specified in Section 397(2)(b), the petitioners have to make out a case (emphasis supplied) for winding up of the company on just and equitable grounds.
Company Law Board Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next