Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.28 seconds)Section 111 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
M/S Ammonia Supplies ... vs M/S Modern Plastic Containers ... on 4 September, 1998
23. A reading of the petition filed before the Company Law Board shows that the case of the respondent was that he neither executed the transfer deed nor received any consideration. Leaving aside the receipt of consideration, if there had been a transfer deed as had been claimed by the respondent, then the transfer deed at least or the registers pertaining to the transfer should have been produced before the Company Law Board. It is not that the burden of proof has been shifted on the appellants without merit. Taking note of the contention of the appellants that there had been a transfer effected by the respondent on receipt of consideration and that the provision of Section 108 of the Companies Act duly complied with as regards the transfer of shares, in the absence of any documents produced, rightly the Company Law Board came to the conclusion that the rectification was rightly called for in the case and the company was to issue duplicate share certificate in respect of the impugned shares in favour of the respondent herein. Hence, even applying the decision of the Apex Court, particularly, the case reported in (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 105 (Ammonia Supplies Corporation (P) Ltd. V. Modern Plastic Containers Pvt. Ltd. And others), in the absence of any material to support the case of the appellants on valid transfer in terms of Section 108 of the Act and when the basic documents were not placed before the Board by the appellants, rightly the Company Law Board granted the relief, a course which could not be faulted by this Court.
Section 155 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Jagjit Rai Maini And Ors. vs Punjab Machinery Works (P.) Ltd. And ... on 2 March, 1995
In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions reported in (1983) 54 Comp Cas 301 (Del) (Anil Gupta V. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd.); (1995) 4 Comp LJ 110 (P&H) (Jagjit Rai Maini and others V. Punjab Machinery Works (P) Ltd. and others); (1997) 4 Comp LJ 455 (CLB) (C.Mathew V. Cochin Stock Exchange Ltd.); (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 105 (Ammonia Supplies Corporation (P) Ltd. V. Modern Plastic Containers Pvt. Ltd. and others); (1999) 2 Comp LJ 205 (Bom) (National Insurance Company Limited V. Glaxo India Limited); (2000) 1 Comp LJ 110 (CLB) (A.Akhilandam and Smt.A.Nagalakshmi V. The Great Eastern Shipping Company Limited and (2008) 2 Comp LJ 314 (Ker) (Duroflex Ltd. V. Tommy Mathew and Duroflex Ltd. V. Johnny Mathew).
Section 10F in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Duroflex Limited Having Its Registered vs Sri. Johnny Mathew on 9 November, 2006
In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions reported in (1983) 54 Comp Cas 301 (Del) (Anil Gupta V. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd.); (1995) 4 Comp LJ 110 (P&H) (Jagjit Rai Maini and others V. Punjab Machinery Works (P) Ltd. and others); (1997) 4 Comp LJ 455 (CLB) (C.Mathew V. Cochin Stock Exchange Ltd.); (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 105 (Ammonia Supplies Corporation (P) Ltd. V. Modern Plastic Containers Pvt. Ltd. and others); (1999) 2 Comp LJ 205 (Bom) (National Insurance Company Limited V. Glaxo India Limited); (2000) 1 Comp LJ 110 (CLB) (A.Akhilandam and Smt.A.Nagalakshmi V. The Great Eastern Shipping Company Limited and (2008) 2 Comp LJ 314 (Ker) (Duroflex Ltd. V. Tommy Mathew and Duroflex Ltd. V. Johnny Mathew).
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Glaxo India Ltd. on 16 February, 1999
In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions reported in (1983) 54 Comp Cas 301 (Del) (Anil Gupta V. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd.); (1995) 4 Comp LJ 110 (P&H) (Jagjit Rai Maini and others V. Punjab Machinery Works (P) Ltd. and others); (1997) 4 Comp LJ 455 (CLB) (C.Mathew V. Cochin Stock Exchange Ltd.); (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 105 (Ammonia Supplies Corporation (P) Ltd. V. Modern Plastic Containers Pvt. Ltd. and others); (1999) 2 Comp LJ 205 (Bom) (National Insurance Company Limited V. Glaxo India Limited); (2000) 1 Comp LJ 110 (CLB) (A.Akhilandam and Smt.A.Nagalakshmi V. The Great Eastern Shipping Company Limited and (2008) 2 Comp LJ 314 (Ker) (Duroflex Ltd. V. Tommy Mathew and Duroflex Ltd. V. Johnny Mathew).
Anil Gupta vs Delhi Cloth And General Mills Co. Ltd. on 11 September, 1981
In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions reported in (1983) 54 Comp Cas 301 (Del) (Anil Gupta V. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd.); (1995) 4 Comp LJ 110 (P&H) (Jagjit Rai Maini and others V. Punjab Machinery Works (P) Ltd. and others); (1997) 4 Comp LJ 455 (CLB) (C.Mathew V. Cochin Stock Exchange Ltd.); (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 105 (Ammonia Supplies Corporation (P) Ltd. V. Modern Plastic Containers Pvt. Ltd. and others); (1999) 2 Comp LJ 205 (Bom) (National Insurance Company Limited V. Glaxo India Limited); (2000) 1 Comp LJ 110 (CLB) (A.Akhilandam and Smt.A.Nagalakshmi V. The Great Eastern Shipping Company Limited and (2008) 2 Comp LJ 314 (Ker) (Duroflex Ltd. V. Tommy Mathew and Duroflex Ltd. V. Johnny Mathew).