Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Upper India Steel Manufacturing And ... vs Gurlal Singh Grewal & Ors on 14 November, 2017

K.J. Paul & Ors vs Seaqueen Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 13 December, 2018

In support of this the appellants have relied upon the judgement pronounced by this Appellate Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) No.150 of 2017-Upper India Steel Manufacturing and Engineering Co Ltd & Others vs Gurlal Singh Grewal alongwith Company Appeal (AT) No.189/2017 decided on 14.11.2017. In the cited case the Tribunal has held that oppression and mismanagement has not been proved. But in the present case NCLT has come to a definite conclusion that the case has been proved against the appellant for oppression and mismanagement. Therefore, the judgement cited above is not applicable to the case in hand.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Atlas Equifin Pvt Ltd vs Jackie Shroff & Ors on 19 September, 2024

16. Though in order to press argument that prior establishment of oppression and mismanagement needs to be made, the appellant had relied upon (i) Upper India Steel Manufacturing & Engineering Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Gurlal Singh Grewal & Ors. [2017 SCC Online NCLAT 339], (ii) BSE Ltd. v. M/s Ricoh Company Ltd. & Ors. [2017 SCC Online NCLAT 12] and (iii) Jaladhar Chakraborty & Ors. v Power Tools & Appliances Co. Ltd. [(1994) Comp Cas 505], however, none of the judgments relied upon by the Appellant, apply to the facts of the present case as (i) does not consider Radharamanan's Case. Also, that in case (i) this Tribunal has recorded that no case of 'Oppression and Mismanagement' was made out whereas no such finding is recorded by the Tribunal in the present case. In Case (ii) the judgment was passed at an interim stage, whereas the Impugned Judgment is a final 11 judgment.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.P. Velumani & Anr vs Magnum Spinning Mills India Pvt. Ltd on 24 June, 2020

35. The records of Appellant attending the meeting and the signatures put on the entry register shows that Appellant No. 1 was present at the registered office of respondent No. 1 Company, where the meeting was conducted. In that meeting the resolution was passed by the majority directors to regulate the procedure pertaining the signatories to the bank accounts of Respondent No. 1 Company, which is in no way oppressive as the decision relating to the Operation of bank account is within the domain of the Board of Directors. NCLT has rightly put its reliance on Judgement of NCLAT in Upper India Steel Manufacturing and Engineering Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Gurlal Singh Grewal & Ors. where it was held that cheque signing power is solely a business decision and cannot be interfered. Further after the authority to sign the cheques has been revised we do not have any fact whether after the revision of the authority the appellant has been totally excluded or not from the operation of the account. In case a person is excluded positively not to have signed even a single cheque after the revision this could be colourable exercise. No evidence has been brought forth to make the change in authorisation to operate the bank account as a colourable exercise. Therefore, this contention has no weight.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1