Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (4.02 seconds)
Documents citing Killick Nixon Ltd. And Others vs Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. And Others on 9 September, 1981

Tracstar Investments Limited And Anr. vs Gordon Woodroffe Limited And Ors. on 8 November, 1995

37. The main grounds for this objection as revealed from the replies to the petition and also elaborated during arguments are that complicated questions of law and facts are involved in this case and that the petitioner has made a lot of allegations that there has been collusion between the parties, that the entire transaction was with mala fide and fraudulent intention, etc., and as such the matter has to be tried and oral evidence has to be taken which cannot be done in a summary proceeding under Section 111(4). We had an occasion to examine similar objections, as rightly pointed out by Shri Sarkar in Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd.'s case [1994] 81 Comp Cas 617 (CLB); [1994] 1 CLJ 178. After dealing with various case law on the subject, in that case, we came to the conclusion that it would not be correct to put any restriction on the discretion of the Company Law Board in dealing with such matters and the decision either to proceed with the case or to relegate the parties to a suit would purely depend on the facts and circumstances of a case.
Company Law Board Cites 57 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

B.D.A. Breweries And Distilleries Ltd. ... vs Cruickshank And Co. Ltd. And Another on 30 July, 1993

(2) The provisions of section 195 only give rise to prima facie evidence, which is rebuttable (see paras 58-03 footnotes 3 and 4 and at page 864 of Palmer's Company Law, 24th edition and at para 58-05 footnote 20 at page 865, Palmer's Company Law 24th edition). The same is the position as found in the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Killick Nixon Ltd. v. Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. [1983] 54 Comp Cas 432. It is submitted that the prima facie presumption has been rebutted in the case of the purported meetings of Arunava held on May 4, 1990, by the affidavit filed by Shri Shovan Roy dated April 28, 1992. Since the plaintiffs' contention was that in the absence of Shri Shovan Roy, a meeting of the board of directors of Arunava could not have taken place and the purported minutes are invalid the question of challenging the same in the plaint as was sought to be alleged could not and did not arise.
Bombay High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dlf Limited vs Sebi on 13 March, 2015

d) Relying on a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Killick Nixon Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Reported in (1983) 54 Comp.cas 432 (Bombay) it is submitted on behalf of DLF that knowledge of the directors of a company cannot be construed to be knowledge of the company itself. If the knowledge of the directors is not the knowledge of the company, then the knowledge of a relative of a director cannot certainly be knowledge of the company.
Securities Appellate Tribunal Cites 94 - Cited by 2 - J P Devadhar - Full Document

Acit, Circle-7(1),, vs System America India Ltd.,, on 12 July, 2018

I have gone through the judgements relied upon by the assessee company and found that it has been observed in the case of Killick Nixon Ltd, Binu Popatlal Kapadia Vs Dhanraj Mills Pvt Ltd & Others (Bombay High Court) that - ......therefore, it is not correct to say that after the instrument of transfer is executed between the transferor and the transferee, a separate application is required to be made either by the transferor or the transferee for registyering the transferee as a member of the company. This is because the prescribed form for the transfer of share itself shows on the face of it that 9 the transferees have agreed to become the members of the company. Hence all that is required is to lodge the transfer deeds or the instruments...."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 58 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Om Prakash Berlia And Another vs Unit Trust Of India And Others (No. 2) on 6 August, 1982

84. It was contended by Mr. Cooper, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, that the right to rectify the shares register of a company was the individual right of each of its shareholders. Each shareholder was entitled to have the register reflect the true position and to take action to ensure that it did. In Mr. Cooper's submission, the shareholder's right to vote, his right to a share in the company's profits and his right to acquire new shares in the company depended upon the entries in the company's share register. In this submission, the individual shareholder's right to rectify the company's share register was recognised by s. 155 of the Companies Act. Reference was made in this context to an unreported judgement of a Division Bench of this court in Appeal No. 344 of 1981 in Company Application No. 196 of 1981, in Company Petition No. 196 of 1981, delivered on 9th September, 1981 - since reported as Killick Nixon Ltd. v. Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. [1983] 54 Comp Cas 432 (Bom). It was there contended that only a person aggrieved by an incorrect or wrong entry in the share register was entitled to file a petition under s. 155 for a rectification of the register. It was contended that the expression "any member" in that section meant only a member who was aggrieved or who was in a position to show that some prejudice or wrong was caused to him. The court declined to accept the submission and held that any member was entitled to apply for a rectification under s. 155 without being compelled to show that he was aggrieved or any prejudice had been caused to him.
Bombay High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 55 - S P Bharucha - Full Document

Colaba Land And Mill Co. Ltd. vs Union Of India on 8 April, 1982

14. The last case cited on this question is an unreported decision of this court in Appeal No. 344 of 1981 in Company Application No. 169 of 1981 in Company Petition No. 196 of 1981, Killick Nixon Ltd. v. Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. since reported in [1983] 54 Comp Cas 432 (Bom), decided on the September 4, 8, 9, 1981, by P. B. Sawant and Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar JJ. The provisions of s. 155 of the Companies Act relating to the power of the court to rectify the register of members were considered. Section 155 provides :
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Vintage Hotels (P) Ltd. & Anr vs Ahamed Nizar Moideen Kunhi Kunhimahin on 12 November, 2020

28. A company can register the transfer on such terms as to the 'Indemnity' as the Board may consider fit. In case of undelivered instruments or lost instruments registration is possible if the 'Transferee' agrees to give 'Indemnity Bond' or security on such terms as the Board may decide. By getting his name registered in the 'Register of Members', the 'Transferee' only perfects his title to the shares and is entitled in his own right to claim all the privileges which were previously claimed by the 'Transferor' in his name as per decision 'Kellick Nixon Ltd.' V. 'Dhanraj Mills (P) Ltd.' (1983) 54 Comp cas 432 (Bom).
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shirish Finance & Investment (P.) Ltd. vs M. Sreenivasulu Reddy on 28 September, 2001

In Killick Nixon Ltd. v. Dhanraj Mills [1983] 54 Comp. Cas. 432 (Bom.), the contention that only a person aggrieved by an incorrect or wrong entry in the share register was entitled to file a rectification application under Section 155, was repelled by a Division Bench of this Court (per Sawant, J. as he then was), and it was held that any member was entitled to apply for rectification under Section 155 without being compelled to show that he was aggrieved, or any prejudice was caused to him.
Bombay High Court Cites 184 - Cited by 26 - Full Document
1   2 Next