Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)Section 397 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Section 241 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Section 399 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 399 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Section 402 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Anup Kumar Agarwal & Anr vs Crystal Thermotech Ltd. & Others on 24 January, 2017
In Anup Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Crystal Thermotech Ltd. & Ors.
[Company Appeal(AT) No. 17 of 2016], this Appellate Tribunal considered
the crucial date when an applicant is required to satisfy the requirements
under Section 399 of the Companies Act, 2013 so as to make the
requirement of having an aggregate of 1/ 10th of share out of the total
shareholding of the company, if the appellant alleges oppression in
bringing down his shareholding. In the said case, this Appellate Tribunal
noticed the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in "Bhagwati Developers
Private Limited" and "Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation
Ltd.," wherein the Apex Court held that the requirement of 1/ 10th of
holding of the total share is to be examined in the light of whether
such a number is maintained on the actual date of presentation of
the company petition in the court (emphasis added). This Court while
discussing the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Bhagwati
Developers Private Limited" and "Rajahmundry Electric Supply
Corporation Ltd." held that the said principle, which was made
Company Appeals (AT) Nos. 159 & 198 of 2017
11
applicable in the case of winding up, will not be applicable where
applicant alleges oppression and mismanagement in bringing down the
shareholding below 1/ 10th of the total share of the company. This
Appellate Tribunal further observed that if the principles laid down by
Supreme Court in "Bhagwati Developers Private Limited" and
"Rajahmundry Electric Supply Corporation Ltd.," which related to
cases of winding up, is made applicable in the case of alleged 'oppression
and mismanagement' in bringing down the minimum requirement of
shareholding, then the applicant (s) will be remediless. This Appellate
Tribunal thereby held that the crucial date for determination of
requirements under Section 399 will be the date the alleged date of
oppression and mismanagement in bringing down the shareholding
below 1/ 10th of the total shareholding of the company took place.
1