Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.33 seconds)Section 52 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 172 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 190 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 397 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Mr. Arun Kumar Mohta And Smt. Sushila ... vs Ganesh Commercial Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 30 March, 2006
4. Further, the Counsel for petitioner contended that the respondents had increased share capital illegally as per decisions of Supreme Court and Company Law Board. The respondent has not even pleaded leave alone prove the necessity of increase in share capital. The respondents have not produced anything on record to prove the necessity for such an increase. The respondent has not placed on record anything to show the need of the company for further investment and hence need for further allotment of additional shares. The R-2 as a director owed a fiduciary duty to inform the shareholders of the company to issue shares for a proper purpose and in the interest of the company as laid down in: Needle Industries case (1982) 1 comp LJ (SC) Punt v. Symons (1903) 2 Ch 506; Moonshine Films (P) Ltd. and Shri. Rajesh Patil v. Moonshine Films (P) Ltd. and Ors. (2006) 6 Comp LJ 161 (CLB); Arun Kumar Mohta and Anr. v. Ganesh Commercial Co. Ltd. and Ors. (2006) 6 Comp LJ 351 (CLB); Dinesh Sharma and Anr. v. Vardaan Agrotech (P) Ltd. and Ors. (2007) 1 Comp LJ 155 (CLB).
Section 398 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Shri Dinesh Sharma And Smt. Bina Sharma vs Vardaan Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 29 August, 2006
4. Further, the Counsel for petitioner contended that the respondents had increased share capital illegally as per decisions of Supreme Court and Company Law Board. The respondent has not even pleaded leave alone prove the necessity of increase in share capital. The respondents have not produced anything on record to prove the necessity for such an increase. The respondent has not placed on record anything to show the need of the company for further investment and hence need for further allotment of additional shares. The R-2 as a director owed a fiduciary duty to inform the shareholders of the company to issue shares for a proper purpose and in the interest of the company as laid down in: Needle Industries case (1982) 1 comp LJ (SC) Punt v. Symons (1903) 2 Ch 506; Moonshine Films (P) Ltd. and Shri. Rajesh Patil v. Moonshine Films (P) Ltd. and Ors. (2006) 6 Comp LJ 161 (CLB); Arun Kumar Mohta and Anr. v. Ganesh Commercial Co. Ltd. and Ors. (2006) 6 Comp LJ 351 (CLB); Dinesh Sharma and Anr. v. Vardaan Agrotech (P) Ltd. and Ors. (2007) 1 Comp LJ 155 (CLB).
1