Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.20 seconds)The Companies Act, 1956
Lawang Tahang vs Goenka Commercial Bank Ltd. on 17 May, 1960
Rajahmundry Electric ... vs A. Nageswara Rao And Others on 16 December, 1955
Shakuntala Rajpal And Others vs Mckenzie Philep (India) P. Ltd. And ... on 5 December, 1988
ix. Shakuntala Rajpal and Ors. v. Mckenzie Philip (India) P. Ltd. And Ors. reported in 1988 Company Cases (Vol.
Cochin Malabar Estates And Industries ... vs P.V. Abdul Khader And Anr. And N.K. ... on 13 February, 2003
14. The learned senior advocate Mr. Joshi in this regard invited attention of this Court to a decision of Kerala High Court in the matter of Cochin Malabar Estates and Industries Ltd. and Anr. v. P.V. Abdul Khader and Anr. reported in 2003 Company Cases (Vol. 114) 777. The learned senior advocate invited attention of the court to the following observations.
V.V. Krishna Iyer Sons vs New Era Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Palghat on 9 December, 1964
...The company judge in the instant case has been passing various orders at the instance of a solitary shareholder effectively sitting in judgement over various business decisions taken by the board of directors. If the board of directors is mismanaging the affairs of the company or board of directors are conducting business prejudicial to the interest of the shareholders they could always move the Company Law Board after complying with the formalities laid down in the Companies Act. The Company court should show circumspection while dealing with an application filed by an ordinary shareholder. A shareholder could always ventilate his grievance before various forums. Details procedures have been laid down in Sections 379 to 409 of the Companies Act for relief against oppression of minority and mismanagement of the company affairs, enabling the shareholder to approach the Company Law Board. The Company Law Board could exercise its powers under Sections 388B and 388E. Further, Section 237 also empowers the Department of Company Affairs to effectively interfere even on a mere complaint by a shareholder if there is evidence to justify the interference in cases of fraud, mismanagement or serious irregularities in the affairs of a company are raised. The company petitioner has never chosen to file any application before the Company Law Board or before any forum alleging fraud or mismanagement, but approached this Court with a winding up petition. The attempt of the petitioner is mala fide and actuated by ulterior motive.
Article 60 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 1 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Registrar Of Companies vs Shreepalpur Cold Storage Private Ltd. on 21 September, 1973
iv. Registrar of Co. Bihar v. Shreepalpur Cold Storage Private Ltd. reported in 1974 Company Cases (Vol. 44) 479;