Company Law Board Clb Court January 2003 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Hb Stockholdings Limited Vs. Jaiprakash Industries Limited
Court: Company Law Board CLB
Decided on: Jan-30-2003
Reported in: (2003)116CompCas28
1. In this petition filed under Section 163 of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act), the petitioner company has alleged that M/s Jaiprakash Industries Limited. (the company) have filed to supply copies of Register of Members in spite of repeated requests and as such sought for directions to the company to supply a certified copy of List of Members holding shares both in physical and de-mat segment in print form as well as in the magnetic media. In the reply, the company has taken a stand that there was no default on the part of the company to supply a copy of the Register of Members as the petitioner had not carried out inspection of the Register of Members before seeking a copy of the same and that the company is not required to supply the information in de-mat segment and in magnetic media.2. This petition was originally heard by the then Member Shri C.R Das on 19th September 2002, when the counsel for both the sides argued the matter, but he demitted office on 30.9.2002 without pronou...
Smt. Prameela Ravindran Vs. Vital Instrumentation Private
Court: Company Law Board CLB
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: (2004)121CompCas837
1. The petition in CP No. 36 of 2001 is filed under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 ("the Act") alleging that the affairs of M/s. Vital Instrumentation Private Limited ("the Company") are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the petitioner.The reliefs made in the Petition as amended in C.A. No. 117/2002 are as under:- (i) to declare that the petitioner's husband late K. Ravindran is entitled to 3,350 equity shares in the Company and consequently direct the Company to rectify the register of members so as to include 1675 equity shares in the name of the petitioner; (ii) to appoint an auditor to value the shares of the Company and the seventh respondents; (iii) to direct the respondents to purchase 2,425 equity shares held by the petitioner in the Company and 25 equity shares in the seventh respondent company; (v) to appoint an administrator to take charge of the affairs of the Company and the seventh respondent company; (vi) to direct the Company ...
Sh. Gurmit Singh, Sh. Digvijay Vs. Polymer Papers Ltd., Shri Sunil
Court: Company Law Board CLB
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: (2005)123CompCas486
1. The undisputed facts in this petition filed under Sections 397/398 of the Companies Act (the Act) alleging oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of M/s Polymer Paper Limited (the Company) are that this company was incorporated in terms of an MOU dated 18^th Oct. 1974 between M/s Fritz and Singh Pvt. Ltd. and Sunil Puri Group. M/s Fritz had two shareholders namely, the first petitioner-Shri Gurmit Singh and one Harjan Singh. On incorporation, the company and M/s Fritz entered into an agreement on 23^rd Oct. 1974 by which the entire business of M/s Fritz was taken over by the company. Some of the clauses of the MOU were that M/s Fritz and Sunil Puri Group would have equal shareholding and that each group would have two directors each in the Board of the company and that as long as Harjan Singh and Gurmit Singh are alive they shall be the nominees of M/s Fritz and that Sunil Puri and one other members of its group would also be directors as long as they are alive. The company wa...
K. Rama Rao, K. Umamaheshwara Rao, Vs. Pressteels and Fabrications
Court: Company Law Board CLB
Decided on: Jan-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)45SCL280
1. The petitioners constituting one-tenth of the total number of members in M/s. Pressteels and Fabrications Private Limited ("the Company") have filed this petition under Section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 ("the Act") alleging various acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the Company.2. The main acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the Company, agitated in the petition relate to the following:- * non-holding of annual general meetings and general meetings of the Company and non-sending of notices to such meetings to the petitioners, even if held by the Company; * non-finalisation of the accounts from time to time and non-compliance of other statutory requirements of the Company; * clandestine sale and treatment of the assets of the Company, both movable and immovables, and misappropriation of the sale proceeds thereon causing losses to the Company; * denying the petitioners from inspecting the statutory records of the Company; and * manipula...
A.B. Appanna Vs. Southern Petrochemical
Court: Company Law Board CLB
Decided on: Jan-16-2003
Reported in: (2004)118CompCas114
1. The depositor in M/s Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Limited ("the Company") has made this application under Section 58A(9) of the Companies Act, 1956 ("the Act") submitting that the Company has failed to repay on maturity the deposit amount of Rs. 1,11,000/- with interest thereon. The application came up for hearing from time to time and finally on 06.01.2003.2. According to Shri Prakash Goklaney, Counsel appearing for the Company, the maturity amount of Rs. 1,22,685/- after deduction of tax at source in respect of the FDR No. 628591 payable to the applicant was dispatched by way of 7 warrants by registered post on 23.01.2001 in favour of the applicant, to the address furnished by him and at his risk, in accordance with the deposit terms. When the applicant complained of non-receipt of the warrants, the Company, as a matter of concern, made detailed enquiries with the Postal Authorities and their Bankers and came to realize that three warrants of Rs. 20,000/- each we...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›