Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)Section 68 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Section 36 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Section 60 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
M/S. M.R.F. Ltd vs Manohar Parrikar & Ors on 3 May, 2010
14. The Appellant submitted that the Transaction Audit Report explicitly
highlights manipulation in the Respondent's books of accounts, with the erstwhile
management inflating the value of the investment in the Appellant through
adjustments to present a healthier balance sheet. The Appellant relied on the
Doctrine of Indoor Management, as established in MRF Ltd. v. Manohar
Parrikar [(2010) 11 SCC 374], to assert that the internal affairs of TBVFL,
including the share transfer, were conducted validly. The Appellant submits that
the transfer of shares to TBVFL on 09.06. 2020, was lawful and does not involve
the Appellant or its promoters in any subsequent transfers, rendering such
considerations irrelevant to this appeal.
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By ... vs Jagannath (Dead) By L.Rs. And Others on 27 October, 1993
28. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant's shifting positions--
extinguishment (22.10.2022), buy-back (18.07.2023), and transfer to Mr.
Sanmati Pandey (18.08.2023)--undermine its credibility. The Respondent
contended that such inconsistencies, as held in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v.
Jagannath [(1994) 1 SCC 1], disentitle the Appellant from relief due to
suppression of facts and fabrication of evidence.
Hindustan Lever & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 18 November, 2003
32. The Respondent submitted that the Scheme Approval Order, passed under
Sections 391-394 of the Companies Act, 1956, is binding, as held in Hindustan
Lever Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2004) 9 SCC 438. The Respondent contended
that Clause 5.1 of the Scheme transferred the Subject Shares to the Corporate
Debtor, corroborated by the Corporate Debtor's financial statements and the
Audit Report.
1