Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.28 seconds)Section 398 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Kale & Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation Ors on 21 January, 1976
In Kale v. Dy. Director of Consolidation , the Supreme Court has held that a family arrangement could be oral and even could be implied from the conduct of the parties and that a fair and equitable family arrangement is final and binding on the parties to the settlement. In the present case, since the petitioner never objected to the allotment of shares to the 10th respondent for nearly 4 years, it is quite evident that they were aware that the allotment was in pursuance to the family settlement. Similar decision has been given by the Supreme Court in Shanugam Pillai . Therefore, the petition should be dismissed.
Dewan Singh Hira Singh vs Minerva Films Ltd. on 24 September, 1958
and Dew an Singh v. Minerva Films Ltd. 29 CC 263-Pnj.
Article 137 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta vs The Union Of India on 2 August, 1973
parameshwary Prasad Gupta v. UOI 44 CC 1: Even if notice for board meeting is not given even to a single director, then, the said meeting is invalid.
Section 98 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 286 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Col. Kuldip Singh Dhillon And Ors. vs Paragaon Utility Financiers P. Ltd. And ... on 15 May, 1986
Kuldip Singh Dhillon v. Paragoan Utility Financial Pvt. Ltd. 64 CC 19: Notice of board meetings should be sent to all directors failing which the decision taken in that meeting will be invalid.