Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.27 seconds)Section 399 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 397 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 111 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 398 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 299 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
M/S.S.V.T.Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd vs M.Palanisami on 31 July, 2009
HC-NIC Page 7 of 15 Created On Sun Sep 10 08:35:48 IST 2017
O/OJA/20/2011 CAV JUDGMENT
3.1. Shri. Suriyanarayanan relied on a judgement in the case
of S.V.T. Spinning Mills Pvt.Ltd and Ors. Vs. M.
Palanisami and Ors. Reported in (2009)151 CompCase
233 (Mad) to suggest that the Company Law Board with the
evidence on record needed to take into consideration all
matters and the question of maintainability could not have
been decided at a preliminary stage. The matters in issue
needed full adjudication.
The Companies Act, 1956
Chatterjee Petrochem(I) Pvt.Ltd vs Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd.& Ors on 30 September, 2011
4.1 According to Shri. Kinariwala, the petitioner having
failed to prove payment of consideration, his name could not
have been registered as a Member in the Register of Shares.
He did not satisfy the requisites of Section 399 of the Act and
therefore the Company Law Board rightly dismissed his
petition. Shri. Kinariwala has relied on the judgement in the
case of Chatterjee Petroleum Private Ltd vs Haldia
Petrochemicals reported in 2012 AIR SCW 2625.