Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 45 (1.22 seconds)
Documents citing Gulabrai Kalidas Naik And Ors. vs Laxmidas Lallubhai Patel Of Baroda And ... on 6 May, 1977

Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs Gujarat Gas Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 24 October, 1997

47. Hence, in the opinion of this court, the aforesaid proposition propounded by this court in the case of Gulabrai Kalidas Naik v. Laxmidas Lallubhai Patel [1978] 48 Comp Cas 438 (Guj) and by the Supreme Court in Canara Bank v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. [1995] 84 Comp Cas 70 will apply with full force to the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board under sections 111 and 111A of the Companies Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

M/S.S.V.T.Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd vs M.Palanisami on 31 July, 2009

25. On the factual matrix, even assuming that the appellants have got the right of raising maintainability of company petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act filed by the respondents, the same has to be decided in the main petition along with other issues and not as a preliminary issue. The same was also the view taken by the Karnataka High Court in Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar vs. Venkateswara Real Estate Enterprises (P) Ltd., [1990 (3) CLJ 38 (Karn)], wherein while construing the meaning of the word 'member' under sections 41 and 2(27) of the Companies Act in the context of sections 397 and 398, by referring to the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Gulabrai Kalidas Naik and others vs. Laxmidas Lallubhai Patel and Others [(1977) 47 Comp. Cas. 151] it was held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 3 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

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

Company Appeal (AT) No. 98 of 2021 42 of 44 "We have heard the arguments put forth by both the counsels and perused the various documents submitted by them. This Tribunal is of the view that the petitioner has to first establish his right as a member of the respondent company before going into the issues concerning oppression and mismanagement of the company. As has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Gulabrai Kalidas Naik & Others vs. Laxmidas Lallubhai Patel & Others case that if the petitioner's title to membership is in dispute and he has to seek a relief of the rectification for getting his name placed on the register of members to clothe himself with the rights of a member, it would be improper, till the dispute is decided, to permit such a person to maintain a petition for oppression and mismanagement because the petitioner is not a member. This observation holds good in this case and as a consequence this petition is not maintainable.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs. E.V. Swaminathan vs K.M.M.A. Industries And Roadways ... on 27 February, 1992

In Shri Gulabrai Kalidas Naik v. Shri Laxmidas Lallubhai Patel of Baroda [1978] 48 Comp Cas 438 (Guj), one of the question that was posed before the learned judge for decision was whether the company court would entertain a petition for relief under section 155 of the Companies Act if it involved disputes on questions of fact. It will be sufficient to set out the headnote which is as follows :
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 7 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Ammonia Supplies Corporation (P) Ltd. vs Modern Plastic Containers (P) And Ors. on 11 October, 1993

(19) Mr. Satish Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the contention that complicated and disputed questions of fact requiring detailed investigation and examination of oral and documentary evidence, can be gone into by a Company Judge in a petition under Section 155 of the Act has placed strong reliance on a single bench judgment of Gujrat High Court in Gulabrai Kalidas Naik Vs. Laxmidas Lallubhai Patel, 1978(48) Company Cases 438.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 28 - Y K Sabharwal - Full Document

Dr. Jitendra Nath Saha And Anr. vs Shyamal Mondal And Ors. on 25 August, 1992

25. Shri Dutta also submitted that the decision in Shri Guldbrai Kalidas Naik's case [1978] 48 Comp Cas 438 (Guj) was followed by the Iterate High Court in Mathew Michael v. Teekoy Rubbers (India) Limited [1983} 54 Comp Cas 88. In the said case, the court observed that the jurisdiction conferred by Section 155(3) is wide and comprehensive, Shri Dutta also relied on some other decisions to strengthen his arguments as to the scope of inquiry by the court (how Company Law Board) in a proceeding for rectification of the register of members. We shall briefly discuss the said cases.
Company Law Board Cites 29 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next