Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.37 seconds)
Dr. A.C. Chaudhuri And Mrs. Purnima ... vs Canadian School Of India Private ... on 23 April, 2003
cites
Section 398 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar vs Sri Venkateswara Real Estate ... on 4 April, 1989
In these circumstances, according to Shri Raghavan, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any relief under Section 397 & 398 in support of which he relied on Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wadiyar v. Sri Venkateswara Estate (Pvt.) Ltd. - (1991) 51 CC 211 - to show that the relief under Sections 397 and 398 is an equitable relief which is entirely left to the discretion of the Court. The question of good faith has to be tested by the conduct of the petitioners as reflected not only in the proceedings before this court but also in the parallel proceedings in the civil court in other civil litigations in other courts. The Company had convened the Board meetings periodically and adopted the accounts from time to time as borne out by the Minutes of the Board meetings held on 01.08.1997, 01.09.1998, 05.05.1999, 19.08.2000 and on 09.07.2001 (R-7 series Pages 34-42 in Vol.II). The petitioners never participated in these meetings in spite of the notices sent to them. The annual general meetings convened in September 2000 and 2001 were adjourned for want of quorum on account of the absence of the petitioners as seen from the minutes of the meetings (R-8, series - Pages 43-44 in Vol.II). The petitioners never complained with regard to convening of the Board meetings or annual general meetings prior to initiating the proceedings before the CLB. The respondents never utilized the funds of the Company for purchase of jewellery for the owns use. According to the respondents they had availed monetary benefits periodically from the Company to the extent of several lakhs details of which are furnished in Pages 47-61 in Vol.II. The amount of Rs. 53 lakhs invested in the partnership entered into between the respondents 2 & 3 with the eighth respondent is neither prohibited nor violative of the stipulations of the SIA approval. Shri Raghavan, therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.
Article 26 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 17 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 58 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath on 27 October, 1993
In this connection, he referred to S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath - AIR 1994 Supreme Court 853 - to show that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree has to be treated as a nullity by every court. It can be challenged in any court even in the collateral proceedings.