Company Law - Judgment Search Results

National Company Law Tribunal Bar Association Vs. Union Of India

Court: Supreme Court of India

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No 180 of 2022 National Company Law Tribunal Bar Association Petitioner Versus Union of India Respondent JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud 1. These proceedings under … Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud 1. These proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution have been instituted by the National Company Law Tribunal Bar Association against the Union government in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.2. The petitioner contends that the

The Company Law Board Vs. the Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd. and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1977SC831; (1977)2SCC198; [1977]2SCR503; 1977(9)LC79(SC)

of civil appeals No. 1840, 1841 and 1842 of 1971 which have been filed on certificate by the Company Law Board against the common judgment of Delhi High Court in three writ petitions by the respondent-company and its … terms set out in that resolution. An application was thereafter made under Section 269 of the Act to Company Law Board, appellant, for obtaining approval to the appointment of Shri Rajinder Lal and Shri Harinder Lal as managing

Company Law Board Vs. Ganesh Flour Mills Co. Ltd.

Court: Delhi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CO.PET. No. 45 of 1971 COMPANY LAW BOARD ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Maneesha Dhir with Ms. Geeta Sharma, Ms. Vanessa Singh and Ms. Sadhvi Shahi, … This petition was filed more than 42 years ago, on 16th June 1971 to be precise, by the Company Law Board (CLB) under Sections 397 and 398 read with Sections 401 and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956

Company Law Board Vs. Ganesh Flour Mills Company Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [1991]72CompCas459(Delhi)

Y.K. Sabhirwal, J. 1. Company Petition No. 45 of 71 has been filed by the Company Law Board under sections 397, 398 read with sections 401 and 402 of the companies Act, 1956 (for short, … which is, consequently, liable to be dismissed as infructuous. 4. The application has been vehemently opposed by the Company Law Board and Hindustan Vegetable Oil Corporation Ltd. The Company Law Board has also filed an application (Company Petition

Regional Director, Company Law Board, Eastern Region Vs. Hindusthan Ge ...

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1984]55CompCas557(Cal)

Suhas Chandra Sen, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the Regional Director, Company Law Board, Eastern Region, against a judgment dated April 29, 1982, delivered by T.K. Basu J. (Hindusthan General Electrical … company was not a relevant consideration.6. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant, the Regional Director, Company Law Board, Eastern Region, that Section 23(3) of the Act has been wrongly construed by the learned judge. It

Regional Director, Company Law Board, Government of India Vs. Mysore G ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: [1977]47CompCas752(Kar); ILR1976KAR997; 1976(1)KarLJ343

1. This appeal by the Regional Director, Company Law Board, Southern Region, Madras, is directed against an order made by a learned single judge of the court, … company or companies, shall be sanctioned by the court unless the court has received a report from the Company Law Board or the Registrar that the affairs of the company have not been conducted in a manner prejudicial

Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Company Law Board and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 1998VAD(SC)408; AIR1999SC345; [1999]95CompCas12(SC); JT1998(5)SC114; 1998(4)SCALE250; (1998)6SCC218; [1998]3SCR881

ORDERKirpal, J.1. These appeals by special leave arise from the common order of the Company Law Board (respondent No. 1 ) which had partly upheld the decision of Bajaj Tempo Limited (respondent No. 2) … 19.11.1983.4. Appeals were the filed by the appellants Under Section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956 before the Company Law Board. On the basis of the pleadings before it and the submissions of the counsels for the parties,

Rajinder Kumar Malhotra and ors. Vs. Company Law Board and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: [1996]85CompCas176(SC); 1995(1)SCALE210; 1995Supp(1)SCC530

Calcutta, which, in turn, partially stayed the operation of an interlocutory order dated 20th October, 1993 of the Company Law Board in a petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act brought before it by petitioners-shareholders … upon by the said company with M/s. Gillette was illegal and operated as oppression of the minority. The Company Law Board by its order dated 20th October, 1993 noticed the prayers made before it:(a) Respondent No. 1 company

The Barium Chemicals Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Company Law Board and ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1967SC295; [1966]36CompCas639(SC); [1967]1SCR898; [1966]SuppSCR311

separate judgments allowing the Appeal. Mudholkar, J. On May 19, 1965 Mr. D. S. Dang, Secretary of the Company Law Board issued an order on behalf of the Company Law Board made under s. 237 (b) of the … 1965 Mr. D. S. Dang, Secretary of the Company Law Board issued an order on behalf of the Company Law Board made under s. 237 (b) of the Companies Act, 1956 appointing 4 persons as Inspectors for investigating

Rampur Distillery and Chemical Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Company Law Board ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1970SC1789; (1969)2SCC774; [1970]2SCR177

Central Government to accord approval to the appointment. This application was referred by the Central Government to the Company Law Board which was constituted under Section 10-E of the Companies Act, 1956, with authority to exercise the powers … the Central Government among others to deal with applications under Section 326 of the Companies Act 1956. The Company Law Board extended the tenure of Govan Brothers till March 31, 1967. Another application by the Rampur Company dated