Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1993Bom392
ORDERSmt. Sujata Manohar, J.1. The appellants are Maharashtra State Finance Corporation. The appellants lent and advanced to Messrs. Atrois Chemicals Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs which was secured by an indenture of mortgage dated 28th January, 1980 executed by the company whereby the company mortgaged its land, building, plant and machinery etc. situate at Tarapur in favour of the appellants. This deed of mortgage has been lodged for registration with the Sub-Registrar of Assurances at Bombay on 28th January 1980. The charge in favour of the appellants in also registered with the Registrar of Companies on 3rd November, 1980 under Section 128 of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. The company was also sanctioned another loan of Rs. 2 lakhs by the appellants. This loan was secured by a deed of further charge dated 16th June, 1981 executed by the company. The charge is also registered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurances at Bombay on 16th June, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1955Cal29,[1954]24CompCas539(Cal),1955CriLJ790,59CWN1
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. We have before us a Rule taken out by two past directors of a company, now in liquidation, who are being prosecuted on charges under Sections 406, 467 and 477A, read with Section 120B of the Penal Code and a further application subsequently made by the same two persons. The application of which notice has been given to the opposite parties was directed to be heard along with the Rule.2. Both by the application on which the Rule was issued and the subsequent application, the Petitioners have prayed that the criminal proceeding pending against them be quashed. The ground urged by them in the Rule is that in the absence of a prior direction judicially given by the Court under Section 237 (1) of the Companies Act, the prosecution launched against them by the liquidator is 'ab inito' void. In the application they contend that the liquidator having taken action under Section 235 of the Companies Act in regard to the self-same matter, the criminal prosecution is no longe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [1975]45CompCas76(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated February 17, 1972, passed by our learned brother, Mr. Justice Patra, as company judge in Company Act Case No. 5 of 1970. The opposite parties Nos. 1 and 3 in the Company Act case are the appellants and all other parties have been impleaded as respondents. This appeal purports to be under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court read with Clause 4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948. Though in the cause title of the memorandum of appeal, it had also been shown to be under the Companies Act of 1956 and the Rules made thereunder, Mr. Patnaik for the appellants concedes that no appeal against the impugned order would lie under the Act or its Rules.2. Company Act Case No. 5 of 1970, was instituted in this court on August 18, 1970, and was one under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act. 129 persons were shown as petitioners. The company and several of its directors entered contest and took the stand, inter ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2012; [2003]114CompCas614(SC); (2003)2CompLJ166(SC); JT2003(2)SC395; 2003(2)SCALE677; (2003)10SCC482; [2003]2SCR631; (2003)2UPLBEC1022
Srikrishna, J.1. These appeals arising under different factual backgrounds raise the same question of law and can, therefore, conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.Facts Civil Appeal Nos. 4702 and 4703 of 1994 2. On 23rd May, 1988 a winding up petition was filed under Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking to wind up the company known as International Coach Builders Ltd. Another petition by another creditor was also filed on 2.11.88. On 10.11.89, during the pendency of the above petitions before the High Court of Karnataka, the respondent, a Corporation established under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (SFC Act), which was the second charge holder on the assets of the said company, took possession of the mortgaged assets of the said company in purported exercise of its power under Section 29 of the SFC Act. On 30.11.1990 the High Court of Karnataka in Company Petition No. 131 of 1988 made an order of winding up of International Coach Builders Ltd and appoin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2008]141CompCas438(All); [2008]85SCL148(All)
S.P. Mehrotra, J.1. It appears that the Company in question, namely Modi Carpets Limited was ordered to be wound up by an order of this Court dated 21.12.1993 passed on the recommendation of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) (registered as Misc. Company Application No. 3 of 1993). The Official Liquidator attached to this Court was appointed as the Liquidator of the said Company.2. It further appears that the Official Liquidator filed an application, namely, Company Application No. 4 of 1998, under Section 454 of the Companies Act 1956.3. The following persons, who were stated to be the Ex-Directors of the said Company (in liquidation), were impleaded as the Opposite Parties in the said Company Application No. 4 of 1998 (Paper No. A-3):1. B.K. Modi2. S.K. Modi3. K.K. Sen4. Ravindra Narain5. Shailendra Swarup6. C.M. Maniar7. R.P. Dongre8. Rajeev Kumar9. N.D. Bhatia10. S.L Duggal4. It is, interalia, stated in the said Company Application No. 4 of 1998 (Paper No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1957Cal520,61CWN709
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is a proceeding under Section 45-G of the Banking Companies Act, The proceedings relate to the affairs of the Central Calcutta Bank Ltd., now in Liquidation.2. The Report of the Court Liquidator who is the Official Liquidator of the Central Calcutta Bank Ltd. (in Liquidation) was submitted to this Court under Section 45-G of the Banking Companies Act on 2-1-1957. The main prayer in the Report asks for an order directing public examination of the Directors of the Bank mentioned in the Report on a date to bo appointed by the Court. The names of the Directors for the relevant period are mentioned in paragraph 4 of the Report of whom No. 1 Charu Chandra Dutt, who was the Chairman of the Board of Directors, is now dead and two others, Nos. 12 and 13 being respectively Asoke Kumar Sen and Jotindra Chandra Rui, have been released from these proceedings by me on the ground that they were not concerned with the transactions complained of during the relevant period....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2000CriLJ310
M.C. Jain, J.1. The dispute relates to a public limited company-Trackparts of India Ltd. which is appellant No. 1 in Appeal No. 2 of 2000 and respondent No. 6 in Appeal No. 3 of 2000. The said appellant No. 1 and appellants Nos. 2 to 5 were respondents before the Company Law Board (for short 'CLB') in Company Petition No. 35 of 1998. An application had been made there by the present respondents Nos. 1 to 5 under Section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956. Both the parties were on the board of directors. The appellants in the other Appeal No. 3 of 2000 are other shareholders of the company. In this appeal No. 3 of 2000, both the parties before the CLB in Company Petition No. 35 of 1998 have been arrayed as respondents. The appellants of this Appeal No. 3 of 2000 are family members/close relatives of appellants Nos. 2 to 5 of. Appeal No. 2 of 2000. In a sense, they are the alter ego of the appellants of Appeal No. 2 of 2000. The two appeals are connected with each other and are being dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (1996)87CompCas398
1. This is a petition filed on October 28, 1992, by the liquidator of BoB Fiscal Services Ltd. (hereinafter called "BoB Fiscal") under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956, praying for an order directing the respondent-company to register the transfer of 7,42,400 equity shares in the name of the petitioner and for other consequential reliefs. The respondents in this case are : (1) Dunlop India Ltd. (hereinafter called "Dunlop") having its registered office at Calcutta and (2) Bank of Baroda, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its head office at Baroda.2. The main facts of this case are : BoB Fiscal (a wholly owned subsidiary company of Bank of Baroda) was incorporated in 1988. In the same year BoB Fiscal purchased from all-India financial institutions 7,42,400 equity shares of Dunlop. Immediately thereafter during September 22, 1988, to October 4, 1988, all the scrips in respect of these shares were l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : [1976]46CompCas555(Cal),79CWN972
Masud, J.1. The important point to be decided in this appeal is whether misfeasance proceeding in connection with a company in liquidation can lawfully proceed against the heirs and legal representatives of an alleged delinquent director after his death. The facts of the case may briefly be stated as follows :2. On January 8, 1958, Ballygunge Real Property and Building Society Ltd. was directed to be wound up under the Companies Act, 1956. On January 2, 1963, the official liquidator took out summons under Section 543(1) of the said Act against its directors including Dr. S. N. Sinha for a declaration that the said directors were guilty of misfeasance and breach of trust and also for an order directing them to repay or restore the money or property of the said company which they were alleged to have retained wrongfully. On November 16, 1969, Dr. Sinha died intestate leaving his son, Parthasarathi Sinha, and two married daughters, Smt. Maya Bose and Smt. Mira Mitra, as his heirs and lega...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2007(4)CHN536
Tapan Kumar Dutt, J.1. Some of the defendants/petitioners have filed the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected their application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. On perusal of the plaint of the suit, it appears that the plaintiffs/opposite parties have prayed for, inter alia, a declaration that the transfer of the shares in favour of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is vitiated by fraud and the same is liable to be delivered up and cancelled and also certain prayers for perpetual injunction have been made by the plaintiff/opposite parties.3. As it appears from the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the respective parties and the allegations made in the plaint, that the dispute between the parties is with regard to an agreement between the plaintiffs on the one hand and the defendant/petitioners on the other hand in connection with the development of a cer...
Tag this Judgment!