Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.54 seconds)
J.P. Srivastava & Sons Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs M/S Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. & Ors on 26 October, 2004 cites

Killick Nixon Limited And Others vs Bank Of India And Others on 18 February, 1982

It appears to us that the intention of the petitioners undoubtedly was to represent the J.K. Group which admittedly has the qualifying number of shares, although the expression of such intention was not as clear as it should have been. All the fora below have not proceeded on the basis that the pleading in the petition did not reflect the intention. They have rested their findings on the law as perceived by them that the Trust could not have been represented by one co-trustee. The perception as we have held was erroneous. The other ground on which the fora dismissed the petition was that the beneficial interest in 551 shares of the 1029 held by the Trust had already vested in the beneficiaries prior to the filing of the petition complaining of mismanagement and oppression. This is again an incorrect legal proposition. An equitable or beneficial interest in shares does not make the owner of the interest a member of the company. [See M/s Howrah Trading Co. V. Commissioner of Income Tax AIR 1959 SC 775; Killick Nixon Ltd. v. Bank of India 1985 (57) Com. Cases 832] Therefore, even assuming that in terms of the Trust Deed the shares had devolved on the beneficiary of the Trust, this would not mean that the owner of the shares as registered with the company would not be competent to file the petition under Sections 397 and 398.
Bombay High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 14 - S V Manohar - Full Document

P. Punnaiah vs Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd on 6 April, 1994

In P.Punnaiah V. Jeypore Sugar Co Ltd. AIR 1994 SC 2258, the member of the company was the daughter, Rajeshwari. She was sought to be represented as a petitioner in an application under Ss. 397 and 398 by her father acting as her agent. The respondents objected saying that this was no consent at all. With a view to counter-act the objection taken by the respondents, the appellants filed an affidavit of Smt. Rajeshwari wherein she affirmed that she had authorized her father to act on her behalf as her G.P.A in that behalf and to take all such steps as he deemed proper to protect her interest. This Court rejected the objection raised by the respondents. Hansaria, J. rested his concurrence with the view on the affidavit filed by Rajeshwari subsequent to the filing of the petition. He said:
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 13 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 Next