Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.35 seconds)Section 111 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Article 5 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 109 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 108 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Gulabrai Kalidas Naik And Ors. vs Laxmidas Lallubhai Patel Of Baroda And ... on 6 May, 1977
25. Shri Dutta also submitted that the decision in Shri Guldbrai Kalidas Naik's case [1978] 48 Comp Cas 438 (Guj) was followed by the Iterate High Court in Mathew Michael v. Teekoy Rubbers (India) Limited [1983} 54 Comp Cas 88. In the said case, the court observed that the jurisdiction conferred by Section 155(3) is wide and comprehensive, Shri Dutta also relied on some other decisions to strengthen his arguments as to the scope of inquiry by the court (how Company Law Board) in a proceeding for rectification of the register of members. We shall briefly discuss the said cases.
Article 7 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Needle Industries (India) Ltd., & Ors vs Needle Industries Newey (India) ... on 7 May, 1981
5. Shri C. R. Dutta, senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, advanced his arguments saying that the understanding reached between the four partners in Canada before formation of the Indian company with regard to the future participation in the capital of the company was given a goby by the respondents and all allotments subsequent to the first allotment were made to increase the holdings of respondents No. 1 and 2 in the company and the principles of equity and fair play were not followed. Quoting certain passages from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Needle Industries (India) Limited v. Needle Industries Newey (India) Holding Limited [1981] 51 Comp Cas 743 ; AIR 1981 SC 1298, Shri Dutta contended that in regard to the issue of shares subsequent to the first allotment, there was a breach of fiduciary duties of the directors. He further contended that apart from the understanding between the partners, his clients as
existing members were entitled to participate in the further issue of capital of the company, but the respondents have failed in their duties as directors in making an offer to his clients although his clients were always willing to provide further funds by way of equity capital. He also contended that there is a gross abuse of power by the directors and allotment of further shares by the directors to themselves and to a few outsiders was not bona fide. As regards the scope of inquiry on an application under Section 111(4) of the Act, Shri Dutta contended that Sub-section (7) of the said section gives wide jurisdiction to the Company Law Board to decide any question that may be necessary or expedient to decide in connection with such application under Sub-section (4).