Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (2002)110CompCas764
1. The petitioner-company along with its associates holding about 44.70 per cent shares in Regal Industries Ltd. ('the company') have filed this petition under Sections 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the company.2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent to sponsor a bought out deal of the company. As per this deal, the petitioner was to acquire certain number of shares in the company which would be later on offloaded in the market. Even though there is a dispute as to the number of shares which the petitioner ought to have acquired, yet, the fact is that the petitioner acquired 6.75 lakh shares of Rs. 10 each at a premium of Rs. 5 per share aggregating to Rs. 1.0125 crore. This amount was paid in three instalments. As per the agreement, the petitioner was entitled to nominate a director on the Board of the company. Accordingly, one Shri Avinash Gup...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (2001)103CompCas835
1. By means of this petition filed under Section 111A(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 ("the Act"), Tarsen Kansil (the petitioner) has, inter alia, prayed for rectification of the register of members of the respondent-company, namely, Dev Spinners Ltd. (respondent No. 1) by declaring that the shares registered by the said respondent in the names of respondents Nos. 7 and 8 be declared as null and void and the name of the petitioner be restored in the register of members of the respondent-company as holder of the impugned shares.2. The case of the petitioner as set out in the petition and as reiterated by Shri Anil K. Agarwal, practising company secretary, is that the petitioner was one of the promoter directors of respondent No.1 holding 1,52,410 equity shares. In June, 1997, all the said shares have been got fraudulently and collusively transferred in the name of respondents Nos. 7 and 8 and their names were recorded, behind the back of the petitioner without his knowledge. The said tra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (2000)100CompCas529
1. In this petition filed under Section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 ("the Act"), alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of Sapphire Machines Private Limited ("the company"), the grievances of the petitioner are that the company has not transmitted to her all the shares held in the name of her father after his death and that further shares have been issued to the respondents' group in exclusion of the petitioner. Accordingly, she has prayed for directions to the company to transfer all the shares held in the name of her father to her and for a declaration that the further issue of shares is null and void.2. The brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner, viz. Umakant G. Mandrekar, on the day of his demise on March 20, 1994, held 1,171 shares constituting 56.51 per cent. of the total shares issued by the company of 2,072 shares. He was the managing director of the company. In the meanwhile, the petitioner being the only daughter of the dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
1. The above applications filed by the applicants under Section 621A of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') are forwarded to this Bench by the Regis- trar of Companies, West Bengal ('the RoC, WB') for composition of the offences as provided under Section 621A(4)(a). In the applications, the applicants seek composi- tion of the offences committed by them relating to contravention of Section 212(1) of the Act by not attaching the balance sheets of the following subsidiaries with the balance sheets of Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd., (the holding company and the applicant No. 1 herein) for the years ended on 30.6.1996, and 30.6.1998 respectively:2. Arunachaleswar Finance & Investment Ltd. 30 June, 19963 Arunava Investments Ltd. 30 June, 199613. Shaw Wallace Distributors (P) Ltd. 31 March, 1997 (A) subsidiary of Shaw Wallace & Hedges 2. The applicant Nos. 1, 4 and 5 in C.A. Nos. 113, 113B and 113C (621A)/ERB of 1999, the applicant Nos. 1 to 3 in C.A. Nos. 327, 327A & 327B (621A)/E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (2000)100CompCas504
1. The petitioners together with their group of shareholders claiming to be majority shareholders in Sutlej Service Station Private Limited ("the company"), have filed this petition under Section 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 ("the Act"), alleging various acts of mismanagement in the affairs of the company more particularly alleging fabrication of documents and illegal issue of further shares.2. The business of the company is running a petrol pump at Nawanshahar (Punjab). According to the petitioners, the first petitioner has been the chairman of the company since 1988 and the second petitioner as the managing director from 1969. However, the first respondent has manipulated the records of the company by dubious means as elaborated in the petition to show as if the petitioners no longer hold the managerial positions and has also engineered to illegally allot further shares in the company to his own group by which the petitioners have been reduced to a minority. With these allegations...
Tag this Judgment!