Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.32 seconds)Praful M. Patel vs Wonderweld Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. And 9 ... on 16 June, 2005
However, in Praful M Patel v. Wonderweld Electrode Pvt. Ltd. 2003 115 CC this Board had directed the minority to buy out the majority as the minority were in control of the company. The very fact that the respondents had not taken any action to remove the petitioners from the management of Bateli after the agreement in December 2004, would indicate that there was subsequent agreement for exclusive management of the company by the petitioners. The allegations against the petitioners that they had diverted funds to their own concerns is only an after thought as the respondents fully knew that there was no diversion but only repayment of the loans taken for installation of new plant and machinery. That is why, they had signed the Balance Sheet for the year ended 31.3.2005 which reflected the repayment of the loans and also additions to the plant and machinery.
J.P. Srivastava & Sons Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs M/S Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. & Ors on 26 October, 2004
In all the letters of authority, it is specifically mentioned that the signatories were petitioners in all the three petitions and that for the purpose of expediency, they have authorized the 2nd petitioner to sign all pleadings and affidavits on their behalf. Further, when the objection relating to the authority letters had been raised, all of them have subsequently filed affidavits affirming that they had given authority letters in favour of the 2nd petitioner to sign the pleadings and affidavits on their behalf. Further the 1st petitioner was personally present in a number of hearing. On a similar objection as in the present case, in Gwalior Sugar case, the Supreme Court has held that when the authority given is subsequently confirmed by an affidavit, then the authority should be deemed to be valid for the purposes of Section 399. In view of this, I hold that the petitions are maintainable in terms of Section 399.
Pearson Education Inc. (Formerly Known ... vs Prentice-Hall Of India Pvt. Ltd., Shri ... on 26 July, 2004
Shri Sarkar relevantly referred to the unreported judgment of Delhi Court in Prentice Hall case, wherein, the Court has held that once oppression is established, reliefs under Section 402 could be granted. In so far as Betali is concerned, I have already held that acts of oppression have been established. Even otherwise, the issue whether relief could be granted in a petition under Sections 397/398, even if no oppression has been established, has been examined the Supreme Court time and again.
Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad & Ors vs Shantadevi P. Gaekwad (Dead)Thr.Lrs. & ... on 20 January, 2005
In Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad v. Shanta Devi P. Gaekwad AIR 2005 SC 809, the Supreme Court has held in para 207 of its judgment that even if no case of oppression had been made out, the court may grant such relief so as to do substantial justice between the parties.
Arati Dutta Gupta And Ors. vs Unit Construction Company Limited And ... on 21 November, 2003
In Unit Construction case, the allegation was that majority had been converted into minority and in Wonderweled case, the majority shareholders has abandoned the company. In regard to New Terai, it is about non payment of PF dues and in case of Belgachi, the allegations are about issue of further shares and non payment of PF dues.
Yashovardhan Saboo vs Groz-Beckert Saboo Ltd. And Ors. on 22 October, 1992
In Yashovaradhan Saboo v. Groz Beckert Ltd. 1993 1 CLJ 20, this Board directed the majority to buy out the minority as the majority was in control of the company.
Article 105 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 14 in The Coinage Act, 2011 [Entire Act]
Sh. Gurmit Singh, Sh. Digvijay Singh And ... vs Polymer Papers Ltd., Shri Sunil Puri, ... on 28 January, 2003
18. The learned Counsel further submitted: 7th respondent belongs to one of the branches of Saraff. In his affidavit in reply to the petition, in various places, he has admitted that Bateli is under the control and management of the petitioners and even in respect of Belgachi, he has averred that the same is under the control and management of Dalmias. It is to be noted that BL Dalmia branch has not filed any affidavit independently, especially when the petitioners have claimed that they had entered into an understanding with that group for swapping their respective shares in Bateli and Belgachi. Saraffs' cannot make any submissions on the same as they were not involved in the understanding. Holding the position of directors is irrelevant as the issue is who is in control and management of the companies. From the facts of the cases, it is abundantly clear that the petitioners are in control and management of Betali, BL Dalmia group of Belchachi and Sharrfs of New Terrrai and the prayer of the petitioners is that the same should be legally formalized by exchange of shares at a value to be determined by an independent valuer and since, Betali's financial position is sound the respondents would get a good price for their shares. Since the petitioners have been in management and control of the company for long they have the legitimate expectation of continuing with the management, and this principle has been applied by this Board in Gurmit Singh v. Polymer Papers Ltd. 123 CC 486. Further, when two companies in which shareholders are common and disputes had arisen among themselves in regard to the affairs of the companies, this Board had directed that each group will control the ownership and management of one company exclusively.
1