Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.34 seconds)Section 155 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Companies Act, 1956
Gulabrai Kalidas Naik And Ors. vs Laxmidas Lallubhai Patel Of Baroda And ... on 6 May, 1977
21. Petitioners' counsel in support of his submission has relied on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Gulabrai Kalidas Naik v. Laxmidas Lallubhai Patel [1978] 48 Comp Cas 438, wherein it was observed as follows (at p. 442) :
Mt. Nazmunnessa Begum, Administratrix vs Vidyasagar Cotton Mills Ltd. on 8 September, 1961
In clause (b) of section 155(1) the words "the fact of any person having become a member" have been construed to mean "having become entitled to be a member" or having got the right of membership, as observed by the Calcutta High Court in Nazamunnesa Begum v. Vidya Sagar Cotton Mills Ltd. [1963] 33 Comp Cas 356 (Cal). In my view having regard to the principles enunciated in the above decision the company application of the petitioners filed under section 155 is maintainable.
Section 111 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Indian Chemical Products vs State Of Orissa & Anr on 5 May, 1966
In support of this submission, he has relied on the decisions : Gulabrai Kalidas Naik v. Laxmidas Lallubhai Patel [1978] 48 Comp Cas 438; Nazamunnessa Begum v. Vidya Sagar Cotton Mills Ltd. [1963] 33 Comp Cas 36 (Cal); Indian Chemical Products Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1966] 36 Comp Cas 592 (SC).
P.V. Chandran vs Malabar And Pioneer Hosiery P. Ltd. And ... on 8 April, 1988
15. The contention of counsel for the respondent is that section 155 of the Act would come into operation in the present case, if the requirement of section 108 of the Act had been complied with by the petitioner and further argued that the request of the petitioner was rightly refused by the respondent because the proviso to section 108 was not followed since there was no proper instrument of transfer duly stamped and executed and delivered to the respondent-company. The respondent's counsel in support of his submission has relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court in P. V. Chandran v. Malabar and Pioneer Hosiery Pvt. Ltd. [1985] 57 Comp Cas 570. It is observed in the said decision (p. 578) that "it is a condition precedent for getting the shares transferred that the instrument should be executed by the transferor and the transferee, and it should be left at the office of the company to be registered along with the fee of Rs. 2. The directors are obliged to consider only a valid application filed in accordance with law under the articles of association. The petitioner has obviously not filed such valid application at all which is a condition precedent to enable the directors to consider the application and register the transfer of shares. On the short ground, the jurisdiction of this court under section 155(2) of the Companies Act itself is not properly or validly invoked by the petitioner nor attracted."