Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (1997)89CompCas13
..... has to fail.21. the second limb of the argument that the right to sue had become time barred before the amendment to the companies act on the basis of the then existing section 155, does not seem to be correct. the amendment act came into force only with effect from-may 31, 1991. even assuming that the cause of action to file these ..... not applicable to proceedings before the company law board, if a right to sue had become barred by the provisions of the limitation act then in force on the date of coming into force of a new act or amendment, then sueh a barred right is not revived by application of a new enactment. for this he relied on ramanathan chettiar v. ..... the madras high court in ramanathan chettiar v. kandappa, air 1951 mad 314, if a right had become barred by the limitation act then in forte on the date of the coming into force of a new act or amendment then such right is not revived by the application of the new enactment. it is further stated that section 3 of the limitation .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (1996)87CompCas941
..... be renewed or a duplicate of a certificate may be issued if such certificate 83. this provision was inserted in the companies act, 1956, on the recommendations of the companies act amendment committee. the amendment was to prevent fraudulent dealing in duplicate shares. sub-section (3) also provides for penal action in the case of a ..... , the full bench came to the conclusion that (at page 178) : "(a) the jurisdiction exercised by the company court under section 155 of the act is discretionary and summary in nature. (b) the company court can decline to entertain a petition involving disputed and complicated questions requiring examination of extensive oral ..... the majority shareholders of sspl from controlling these shares. (e) registration of these shares was in contravention of the provisions of section 108 of the act as the share certificates did not accompany the transfer deeds. (this has become irrelevant as it later transpired that duplicate certificates accompanied the transfer deeds). .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (1996)87CompCas331
..... explanatory statement annexed with the notice of the meeting did not fulfil the requirements of section 173 of the companies act and that the company be directed to offer inspection of documents. company application no.71 of 1995 relates to amendments to the main petition.2. it is essential to record, in brief, the events which led to the ..... will be given within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.22. in regard to application no. 71 of 1995 seeking to incorporate amendments to the main petition, we allow the same except that portion relating to the extraordinary general meeting held on june 20, 1994, since we have already considered the ..... same in this order. the respondents will file their replies to the amended application by july 15, and rejoinder, if any, will be filed by august 15, 1995. we also find that the petitioners are yet to file their replies on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (1996)87CompCas398
..... and bharathamata desiya sangam v. roja sundaram, air 1987 mad 183. according to him even if limitation under the limitation act is taken into account, it goes up to november, 1991, by which time the amendment has come into force and the jurisdiction has undergone a change. he also confirmed that the petition is made under section ..... not expired in may, 1991. the petitioner cannot be held back by limitation restrictions when there is a statutory amendment which frees them from the limitation provisions. of course this is on the assumption that limitation act does not apply to the company law board which is examined at length. as such this argument of shri mookherjee ..... 111(4) of the companies act, 1956.14. with regard to the contention of the respondent-company that there are complicated .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (1995)83CompCas454
..... that earlier, the forums were different but now the forum is the same. quoting from the statement of objects and reasons relating to the companies (amendment) act, 1988, in respect of assimilation of the provisions of section 155 in section 111, he stated that the entire section 155 has been reproduced in section 111(4) and, ..... are section 111(2) and 111(3) especially after the assimilation of the provisions of the erstwhile section 155 in the present section 111.24. before the 1988 amendment to the companies act, remedy for an aggrieved transferee was provided in section 111 and the forum to deal with his grievances was the company law board, as a delegate of the ..... -section (4) does not mention any time-limit and that these two provisions will have to be harmoniously interpreted particularly after the 1988 amendment when the provisions of section 155 have been incorporated in section 111 of the act he referred to c w. s. (india) ltd. v. cit [1994] 208 itr 649, 656 ; jt 1994(3) sc 116. " we .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (1996)85CompCas689
..... 33. we have now gone into the question of applicability of the relevant provisions of the special court (trial of offences relating to transactions in securities) amendment act, 1994 (act 24 of 1994), as assented to on march 28, 1994. the words "court" or "civil court" have not been generally defined in the judicial ..... company law board as it will not in any way conflict with the objective of amendment. we, therefore, hold that the special court amendment act, 1994, does not apply to the proceedings before us ..... long waiting period, the legislature has considered it appropriate to amend the special court act to clothe the special court with the powers of a civil court with the objective of expeditious disposal especially in matters where notified persons were involved. the amendment act, however, does not intend to disturb the proceedings before the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (1995)84CompCas811
..... the securities and exchange board of india regulations, it could have been specifically provided for in the securities and exchange board of india regulations with suitable amendment to the unit trust of india act, but it has chosen not to do so. as a matter of fact, even the securities and exchange board of india to which the ..... and as such the unit trust of india regulations would continue their application. besides this, he also stated that sections 33 and 35 of the said act which relate to "amendment of certain enactments" and "repeal and saving" do not indicate any provisions to the effect that the unit trust of india regulations have been either ..... out by shri rohit kapadia, in the main act, namely, the securities and exchange board of india act under which the regulations have been formulated, the provisions of the unit trust of india act have not been either repealed or superseded nor there is any amendment to the unit trust of india act subjecting the unit trust of india to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (1997)88CompCas245
..... respondents themselves, is the new address to which they had shifted only on august 14, 1991. another instance of fabrication illustrated relates to an amendment of the articles of association purportedly at the extraordinary general meeting called on july 9, 1991, but the relevant resolution appears to have been filed ..... the company. in addition burdening the company with additional rental by shifting the registered office and thereby committing avoidable expenditure to the company also constitutes an act of mismanagement. the petitioners, therefore, are entitled to reliefs : (2) appointment of administrator and/or independent committee of management ; 45. while considering ..... the petitioners were in management and they failed to repay the bank loans, left the company dry with no liquidity on account of their own acts. consequently, the bank initiated recovery proceedings. other creditors of the company had also filed recovery or winding up proceedings on account of outstandings contracted .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (1995)82CompCas745
..... drawn to an ordinance promulgated by the president of india on january 25, 1994, namely, the special court (trial of offences relating to transactions in securities) act, amendment ordinance, 1994, by which it appeared that our very jurisdiction to hear this case has been taken away. we, therefore, asked the parties to argue this ..... of the ordinance which reads as follows : "(3) on and from the commencement of the special court (trial of offences relating to transactions in securities) amendment ordinance, 1994, no court other than the special court shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, power or authority in relation to any matter ..... be within the exclusive competence and jurisdiction of the custodian appointed under the provisions of the special court (trial of offences relating to transactions in securities) act, 1992. it was further contended that even assuming that the company law board has jurisdiction to entertain the petition, there was no need for impleading .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (1994)79CompCas764
..... the way of the company law board in considering these violations of law. perhaps, he argued, the board of directors was not aware of the amendment to section 22a of the scr act and as such the ignorance of the board cannot validate an invalid transaction. therefore, he advocated that the violation of the provisions of section 372 of ..... with effect from may 30, 1990, is one of the grounds under which registration can be refused under section 22a of the scr act. he brought to our notice that section 22a of the scr act was amended to insert a sub-section (3)(b) to the effect that the board of directors of a company can reject transfers in case ..... -up share capital of another company unless previously approved by the central government.as per section 374 of the act, penalty has been provided for contravention of the provisions of section 372. in sub-section (4) of section 372, vide amendment with effect from april 17, 1989, the words "unless further it is approved" were substituted by the words .....
Tag this Judgment!