Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing Col. Kuldip Singh Dhillon And Ors. vs Paragaon Utility Financiers P. Ltd. And ... on 15 May, 1986

Shri Navin R. Shah, Smt. Chandri N. Shah ... vs Simshah Estates And Trading Co. Pvt. ... on 25 October, 2004

b. Kuldip Singh Dhillon v. Paragaon Utility Financiers Pvt. Ltd. (l988(64) CC 19 (Petition & Hon'ble Supreme Court), wherein it is held that the resolution passed by Board of Directors may be legal and yet oppressive to minority and such resolution can be struck out as also the notice of the meeting of Board of Directors must be sent to all directors otherwise resolution invalid.
Company Law Board Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

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

44. I have already given my finding on the impact of meetings held without notice to the 2nd petitioner and a such I am not repeating the same. In so far applicability of Section 300 is concerned, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that in allotment of shares, the company being a party, it is an arrangement and also a contract with the company. Shri Choudhary relied on the decision of Supreme Court in Kerala Kauladi Ltd. case wherein the Supreme Court has held that it is imperative that the company should be a party to any agreement relating to allotment of shares. I find that this case has been quoted out of context as in that case, the provisions of Section 300 were not examined.
Company Law Board Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Martin Castelino vs Alpha Omega Shipmanagement (P.) Ltd. on 16 May, 2000

Cal. Kuldip Singh Dhillon v. Paragaon Utility Financiers (P.) Ltd [1988] 64 Comp. Cas. 19 (Punj. & Har.) : A resolution passed by the board of directors even if legal, could be oppressive to the minority and can be struck down 21 days notice to all the members for a general body meeting is mandatory and if such notices are not so issued, the resolution passed at the meeting could be invalid.
Company Law Board Cites 23 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Dial Singh vs Inspector General Of Prisons And Ors. on 28 September, 1987

vi) In the column meant for "names of any near relatives to the patient who are alive" all that is mentioned is "S. Her bans Singh Dhillon, V. & P.O. laid, District Jullundur". Who is this Harbans Singh and how is he related to Kashmir Singh, is not explained anywhere. Why none of the relations of the petitioner-though there are many who are residents of his ancestral village, Mohkamgarh has been mentioned in this application?
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Dileep Makhija And Ors. vs Mr. Arun Mittal And Ors. on 14 May, 2003

8. In the former case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since notice had not been given to one of the Directors who was also not present, the resolution passed on that date would be invalid. Dhillon's case (supra) also sets down the same ratio. What ought not to be glossed over is the fact that the Court considered it relevant that the Director who had not received the notice did not attend the meeting. Therefore, the infraction of the Section can be regularised and legalised by the presence of the Director and secondly that the repercussions of the infraction is only the imposition of a fine. At the present stage of the litigation it would be wholly inappropriate for the Court to go into the allegation of failure to issue written notices of the meetings which have attained some antiquity. The Plaintiffs have not objected to the meetings held earlier and it is possible to assume that the resolutions of the Board had their implicit, if not explicit, consent and approval. When issues pertaining to the past are raked up after the lapse of considerable time, I find it difficult to hold that a prima facie case has been disclosed and/or that the balance of convenience lies in favor of the Plaintiffs. This position would be altogether altered if the challenge is to the last meeting, of which none of the Plaintiffs had received notice and or to a future meeting. Of course the Plaintiffs may succeed in establishing the case at the final stage of the case, after due opportunity is made available to both the adversaries to prove the violation of statutory provisions or to the Articles of Association which are allegedly inviolable. It is well settled that a slothful party, who has not come to Court at the earliest available opportunity, would ordinarily not be entitled to discretionary relief.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 4 - V Sen - Full Document
1   2 Next