Advanced Search Results

Shri Chandrakant Kantilal Shah Vs. National Refinery Private

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Subject : Company

Reported in : (2004)51SCL387

Matched in: Court Company Law Board CLB

Sms Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Subject : Company

Reported in : (2004)49SCL117SAT

1. South East Marine Engineering and Construction Ltd.,(SEAMEC) is a public limited company registered in India under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of

Baldevdas R. Raheja Vs. the Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Company

Reported in : (1977)79BOMLR581

for a writ of mandamus for withdrawing or cancelling the order dated June 25, 1973 made by the Company Law Board (respondent No. 2) appointing respondents Nos. 5 and 6 as Government Directors for one year from

Shirish Finance and Investment (P.) Ltd. Vs. M. Sreenivasulu Reddy

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Company

Acts : Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1994 - Regulations 2, 2(1), 2(2), 3, 3(1), 4, 5, 5(1), 6, 9, 9(1), 9(2), 9(3), 10, 10(1), 10(2), 11, 12, 13, 14, 14(1), 15, 16, 16(1), 17, 18, 19, 20, 20(1), 20(2), 20(3), 21, 21(1), 21(2), 21(3), 21(4), 22, 23, 33, 33(2), 34, 36, 37, 37(2) and 39; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 2, 2(11), 6, 7(1), 9(2), 10, 11, 11(2), 11B, 12, 15H, 15K, 15T(2), 15Y, 15Z, 16(2), 18(5), 20, 20A, 21, 24, 27, 27(3), 28, 30, 32, 38, 87, 108, 111, 111(4), 111(5), 111(7), 111(9), 111(10), 111(12), 111(14), 111A, 111A(2), 111A(3), 111A(5), 155, 155(1), 155(3), 169, 397, 398, 538, 545, 630 and 630(1); Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 6; Indian Contract Act - Sections 23 and 57; Securities and Exchange

Reported in : 2002(1)BomCR419

jurisdiction of the SEBI. That, prima facie, a suit was maintainable in common law for rectification of the company's membership register. The consequential decision on disinvestment, however, will have to be arrived after considering all aspects including

Synchron Machine Tools P. Ltd. and Others Vs. U.M. Suresh Rao

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 4(3), 165, 169, 210, 397, 398, 399, 399(1), 402, 403, 404, 406, 433, 439 and 443(2)

Reported in : [1994]79CompCas868(Kar); ILR1992KAR3329; 1992(4)KarLJ490

transferred to the petitioner; 2. quash the proceedings of the extraordinary general meeting of the members of the company held on November 12, 1987, and annual the resolution passed at the extraordinary general meeting of the company

National Textile Workers' Union and Ors. Vs. P.R. Ramakrishnan and Ors ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 433, 439, 443, 445(3) and 450; Constitution of India - Article 43A; Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 - Rule 34; Administrative Law; Industrial Disputes Act - Sections 25FFF

Reported in : AIR1983SC75; [1983]53CompCas184(SC); (1983)1CompLJ1(SC); (1983)ILLJ45SC; (1983)IIMLJ1(SC); 1982(2)SCALE1144; (1983)1SCC228; [1983]1SCR922

leave raise a short but interesting question of law relating to the right of workmen employed in a company to appear and oppose a petition for winding up of the company. The controversy between the parties arises

In Re: Mafatlal Industries Ltd.

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 2, 2(11), 7, 39(2), 64, 75, 81, 81(1), 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 153, 173, 173(1), 173(2), 186, 206, 208, 209, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 391, 391(1), 391(2), 392, 393, 393(1), 393(2), 394, 394(1), 394A, 395, 397, 398, 425, 428, 429, 582 and 582(5)

Reported in : [1995]84CompCas230(Guj)

S.D. Shah, J.1. Mafatlal Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'MIL' for brevity) is the transferee company, which has moved this petition for sanction of this court to the scheme of amalgamation of Mafatlal Fine

Shankar Sundaram Vs. Amalgamations Ltd., Chennai,

Court : Chennai

Subject : Company

Reported in : [2002]111CompCas252(Mad)

An interesting question of law arises in this appeal on the scope of the expression 'affairs of the company' occurring in sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 and further questions whether the said expression

Jer Rutton Kavasmaneck @ Jer Jawahar Thadani and Another Vs. Gharda Ch ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Company

resolution purportedly passed at its Extraordinary General Meeting when : (i) the CLB itself permitted amendment of the Company Petition impugning the convening of the said EOGM, and (ii) the CLB had adjourned another Company Application for

Vikrant Forge Limited and Others Vs. official Liquidator and Others

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Company

27, 2015. SANJIB BANERJEE, J. : - The applicants question the extent of the authority available to a company Judge under Section 535 of the Companies Act, 1956 and cite the constitutional provisions pertaining to distribution of