Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.47 seconds)Section 398 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Mrs. Farhat Sheikh vs Esemen Metalo Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. And ... on 31 October, 1994
(4) Mrs. Farhat Sheikh v. Esemen Metalo Chemicals (P.) Ltd. [1996] 87 Comp. Cas. 290 (CLB).
Needle Industries (India) Ltd., & Ors vs Needle Industries Newey (India) ... on 7 May, 1981
(5) Needle Industries (India) Ltd. v. Needle Industries Newey (India) Holding Ltd. [1951] Comp. Cas, 740.
Maharani Lalita Rajya Lakshmi M.P. vs Indian Motor Co., (Hazaribagh) Ltd. And ... on 10 May, 1961
In the present case, the complaint is of a single act of allotment of shares, an isolated act and as such cannot be considered to be an act of oppression as has been decided in Maharani Lalita Rajya Lakshmi v. Indian Motor Co. (Hazaribagh) Ltd. [1962] 32 Comp. Cas. 207 (Cal.). The provisions of this section can be invoked only when the substratum of the company is lost or there is a lack of probity or there is a deadlock in management. In this petition, there is no averment by the petitioner to the effect that he has been affected by any of the above acts.
Nagavarapu Krishna Prasad And Anr. vs Andhra Bank Ltd. on 19 March, 1982
It has been held in Nagavarapu Krishna Prasad v. Andhra Bank Ltd. [1983] 53 Comp. Cas. 73 (AP), that acquiring large block of shares in a company with a view to gain control cannot be considered to be an act of oppression.
Chander Krishan Gupta vs Pannalal Girdhari Lal Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 6 November, 1981
Since the petitioner has not alleged any ground other than relating to the allotment of shares, or that the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner affecting the petitioner, the petition is not maintainable as decided in Chander Krishan Gupta v. Pannalal Girdhari Lal (P.) Ltd. [1984] 55 Comp. Cas.
C.P. Gnanasambandam vs Tamilnad Transports (Coimbatore) ... on 17 March, 1970
), C.P. Gnanasambandam v. Tamilnad Transports (Coimbatore) (P.) Ltd. [1971] 41 Comp. Cas. 26 (Mad.). The words "are being conducted" suggest a course of oppressive conduct which means the same must exist on the date of the petition. In other words, the alleged wrong doing should continue till the date of the petition which is not the position in the present case.
N.R. Murty vs Industrial Development Corporation Of ... on 7 January, 1977
351 (SC), N.R. Murty v. Industrial Development Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. [1977] 47 Comp. Cas. 389 (Ori.). Further, a company under the control of the petitioner has filed a winding up petition which means that the petitioner cannot now claim in this petition that winding up would not be in the interest of the petitioner.
Smt. Shantadevi Pratapsinh Gaekwad vs Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad on 9 August, 2000
Since the respondents, being in a majority on the Board, always had control over the company with the further issue of shares, they continued to control the affairs of the company and as such the question of any oppression against the petitioner's group does not arise as was held in Smt. Shanti-devi Pratapsinh Gaekwad v. Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad [1996] 1 Comp. LJ 72 (Guj.). In this connection, the learned counsel cited few other cases also.