Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing Bengal And Assam Investors Ltd. vs J.K. Eastern Industries Private Ltd. on 9 July, 1956

In Re: Ruttonjee And Co. Ltd. vs Unknown on 25 July, 1967

83. I would now come to the case of Bengal and Assam Investors Ltd. v. J. K. Eastern Industries Private Ltd.. . P. B. Mukharji, J. refused to call a general meeling in this case under Section 186- The facts, inter alia, were that a notice had already been issued calling an extraordinary general meeting of the company. The learned Judge in paragraph 5 at pafje 660 observes: "The resolutions that are intended to be passed at the meeting demanded by the re-quisitionists are set out in the notice itself." The learned Judge thought that there was, therefore, no impracticability in the matter of calling the meeting. The ground on which the assistance of the Court was sought, was that one K. L. Jatia, the Chairman of the Board of Directors, Might not act impartially because his removal was sought in one of ihe proposed resolutions for the extraordinary meeting, P. B-Mukharji, J. in paragraph 13 at page 661 says: "I am satisfied that K. L. Jalia cannot decide on the resolutions proposed in that meeting because the resolutions will have to be voted by the share-holders. It is the share-holders who will be in control of the meeting.
Calcutta High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jatan Kumar Thaosen And Anr. vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 4 April, 2007

Reference has also been made of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Bengal and Assam Investors Ltd. v. J.K. Eastern Industries Pvt. Ltd. reported in AIR 1985 (Cat.) 658, wherein the true meaning to the word "impracticable" appearing in Section 186 of the Companies Act, 1956 was sought to be given. The Calcutta High Court was of the view that the word used in Section 186 has to be given a practical meaning i.e., it has to be understood from the business point of view. Both the decisions relied upon by the petitioners appear to admit some amount of flexibility with regard to the meaning of the word--"impracticable".
Gauhati High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - D Biswas - Full Document

Shrimati Jain vs Delhi Flour Mills Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 10 May, 1973

In a still later decision of the same High Court in Bengal & Assam Investors Ltd. V. J. K. Estern Industries Private Ltd. 60 C.W.N. 956, P. B. Mukherji J. (as he then was) reviewed the case law in question and agreed with the principles decided by the aforesaid cases but still declined to order a meeting in that case. He observed that a discretion granted under section 186 should be sparingly used and with great caution so that the court does not become either a shareholder or a director of the company trying to participate in internecine squables of a company.
Delhi High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Kishore Y. Patel And Others vs Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. And Others on 4 July, 1991

The above referred judgment of the High Court of Madras was well distinguished by the High Court of Calcutta in Bengal and Assam Investors Ltd. v. J. K. Eastern Industries P. Ltd., . In this case, the shareholders had issued a requisition to call an extraordinary general meeting to consider a proposed resolution for removal of certain persons as directors. In this case, an application was made for an order that the meeting be called in accordance with the directions of the court and the same be conducted in a manner the court deemed fit.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1