Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.27 seconds)Reliance Natural Resources Ltd vs Reliance Industries Ltd on 7 May, 2010
Nother
prevented the company from doing so. The resolution dated 31.08.2003
did not prohibit the company from passing any further resolutions which
were necessary for the overall governance of the company and which
was in the best interest of the company. In fact the arrangement dated
31.08.2003 was subject to the overall control of the company. This is
clear from the exception clauses (italized above).
14 The Supreme Court in Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. (supra)
while dealing with the binding nature of an inter-se family arrangement
of Reliance group on the Company had noted that the MOU signed
between the private family members and the arrangement of
understanding arrived at between Ambani brothers and their mother,
being a private arrangement, did not fall within the corporate domain; it
was neither approved by the shareholders and nor it was attached to the
scheme; it was held to be not legally binding. In that case, there was a
scheme which had been proposed under Sections 391 & 394 of the
I.A. No.22804/2014 in CS (OS) No.3510/2014 Page 19 of 21
Companies Act and the Apex Court had noted that the MOU entered
between the members of the family would not bind the other
shareholders before whom the scheme of arrangement had been
proposed; such an MOU was not within the corporate domain.
15 The ratio of this judgment clearly supports the proposition of the
defendants.
The Companies Act, 1956
1