Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: competition amendment act 2007 section 4 amendment of section 5 Court: company law board clb Page 9 of about 196 results (0.077 seconds)

In Re: Gees Marine Products

Court : Company Law Board CLB

..... family concern, with family members as shareholders. the shareholders including the petitioners decided that it would be better to operate the vessels individually for better performance, maintenance and competition so as to benefit the company with good profit. the petitioners never objected to the mou, which came to be entered into with the knowledge of the fourth ..... impleaded as a party to the proceedings. mr. griffin kagoo, a chartered accountant, was to be in charge of the statutory requirements like income tax, companies act and other acts applicable to the industry, while the second respondent has been in charge of the operation mfv superna any mfv michel. the mou of august 1999, referred to ..... members. in this connection beneficial reference is invited to a judgement of the delhi high court in pearson education inc. v. prentice hall india private limited (2007) 136 cc 294 wherein it has been held that once oppression is established, reliefs could be granted under section 402 of the .....

Jitendra J. Bhabhera Vs. Forbes Gokak Ltd.

Court : Company Law Board CLB

..... certificates in respect of the said 50 shares are in the custody of the company. the respondent no. 1 respectfully submitted that it would act in accordance with the instructions/order passed by the clb in the matter.4. the petitioner did not file any rejoinder to the reply ..... directed the petitioner to implead shri mukul lalshankar yagnik, the transferee, a part in the petition and to amend the petition accordingly. the petitioner has impleaded the respondent no. 2 mr. mukul lalshankar yagnik, the transferee as a party and filed an ..... amended petition under section 111a on 24-1-2001.5. the matter was finally heard on 23-3-2001. inspite of notice ..... 1. mr. jitendra j. bhabhera, the appellant/petitioner filed an appeal under section 111a of the companies act, 1956 ('the act') praying, inter alia, to direct forbes gokak ltd. ('the respondent company') to rectify the register of .....

S. Ajit Singh Vs. Dss Enterprises (P.) Ltd.

Court : Company Law Board CLB

..... the petitioners filed a rejoinder to this reply challenging the stand of the respondents in these matters and thereafter they filed ca 3/99 seeking to amend the petition incorporating therein reliefs relating to cancellation of the allotment and restoration of the directorship. no reply appears to have been filed on this application ..... (the company) claiming to collectively hold 50 per cent shares in the company have jointly filed this petition under section 397/398 of the companies act, 1956 ('the act') alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement against the respondents and have prayed for appropriate reliefs.2. the case of the petitioners in brief is that dss enterprises ..... the minutes of the meeting were forged stand fully substantiated. it was submitted that the facts of the case amply demonstrate that the respondents have acted in an oppressive and prejudicial manner to the petitioners and their actions completely lack probity and fair dealing.25. initiating the arguments on behalf of .....

G. Venkitapathy Vs. Prakathi Spinners (P.) Ltd.

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Reported in : (2003)115CompCas443

..... a plain reading of section 3, in our view, shows that a company cannot be incorporated as a private company after the commencement of the companies (amendment) act, 2000 unless its articles provide for the aforesaid prohibition. however, we find that no provision has been made in this behalf in respect of existing private companies ..... the meaning of section 3(1)(iii) and, accordingly, its articles contain the relevant restrictive clauses as prescribed in that section. by virtue of the companies (amendment) act, 2000, with effect from 14-12-2000, section 3(1)(iii)(d) prohibits a private company from inviting or accepting deposits from persons other than its ..... , advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, at the outset has raised the following preliminary objections:-- (a) section 3(iii)(d) of the companies (amendment) act, 2000 which has come into effect from 14-12-2000 prohibits a private company from inviting or accepting deposits from persons other than its members, directors or their .....

Ashok Kumar Oswal Vs. Vardhman Polytex Ltd.

Court : Company Law Board CLB

..... removed as the md. in such a situation, there will be change in the board. further, even without a provision in the articles and without waiting for amendment to the articles, the 1st respondent has got himself appointed as the cmd which in invalid ab initio. further, his appointment as the cmd is in violation of ..... therefore, the terms of the prospectus could not have been modified without the approval of the debenture trustees. the reliance of the company on section 106 of the act for obtaining the approval of the debenture holders cannot be accepted inasmuch as this section deals with only shares and not debentures. the company has not justified need ..... of directors of a company and, therefore, any hierarchical change in the board cannot constitute change in the board. further, this section is preventive in nature and acts which had already taken place cannot be remedied by this section. since the 1st respondent has already been appointed as the chairman and md, the petitioner cannot seek .....

Shri T.O. Aleyas, Shri Bobby Vs. St. Mary'S Hotels Private Limited

Court : Company Law Board CLB

..... the period he holds that office, thereby taking away the power of the board of directors to remove the managing director during currency of his office. this amendment goes against the collective wisdom of the board of directors in protecting the interest of the smhpl. in the process, the second respondent attempted to ensure that ..... m/s t.o. abraham and company engineers and contractors private limited ("acecpl") under sections 397, 398, 402 read with section 111 of the companies act, 1956 ("the act") alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the acecpl, on account of the illegal allotment of shares in favour of the respondents 2 to 5 and ..... paid up capital of m/s st. mary's hotels private limited ("smhpl") under sections 397, 398, 402 read with section 111 of the companies act 1956, ('the act') alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the smhpl on account of the illegal transfer of the impugned shares in favour of the second respondent, illegal .....

Shri M.S.D. Chandrasekar Raja Vs. Shree Bhaarathi Cotton Mills

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Reported in : (2005)57SCL72

..... the petitioner and prejudicial to the interest of the company and claiming the following reliefs: a) to appoint one or more suitable persons to act as directors of the company; b) to amend article 5 of the articles of association of the company to the effect that "until otherwise decided by the general meeting, the company ..... of association; d) to direct the company to issue duplicate share certificates in respect of the 284000 equity shares issued and allotted to the petitioner; e) to amend article 4(a) of the articles of association of the company in the following manner: - (i) any share may be transferred by a member to any other ..... third party explicitly show the aversion of the second respondent towards his parents. shri murari, learned counsel, in conclusion submitted that the petitioner having established the acts of oppression committed by the second respondent is entitled for the relief and pointed out that the clb has power to grant relief under equitable jurisdiction even where .....

Pik Securities (P.) Ltd. Vs. United Western Bank Ltd.

Court : Company Law Board CLB

..... contained in article 46 are void as section 88 prohibits issue of shares with differential rights. it rnay be noted that this section has been omitted by amendment act, 2000). in the present case, the general body has approved the increase in the authorized capital and, therefore, there is compliance with this article. article ..... he decided to withdraw the resolution, he should have obtained the approval of the members before doing so. further, before the starling of the meeting, certain amendments were proposed in relation to the first resolution but nothing was said about the withdrawal of the fourth resolution. the withdrawal was only on account of the apprehension ..... shares are of the denomination of rs. 10 per share. the bank convened an extraordinary general meeting on 7-8-2000 to transact the businesses relating to amendment to articles, issue of bonus-cum-right shares. in all, there were 4 proposals to be considered as special resolutions.the second item was to increase the .....

Ppn Power Generating Company Vs. Ppn (Mauritius) Company and ors.

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Reported in : (2006)129CompCas818

..... alia order that the company be managed by a professional manager under the guidance of the administrator and aided by a consultative committee; c) to amend, alter and/or modify article 34a and article 74a of the articles of association of the company to the extent that the suspension of veto/ ..... icc arbitral tribunal. indian courts do not have jurisdiction to grant anti-suit injunctions in respect of foreign arbitral proceedings, especially those where the arbitration & conciliation act, 1996 is inapplicable as held in the following decisions: -bhadresh kantilal shah v. magotteaux international and ors., (2000) 2 comp lj 323 dresser rand sa ..... the petitioners being minority shareholders must respect the corporate democracy and yield to the business decision of the majority shareholders. the petitioners aggrieved by the act of the respondents in not initiating any legal action against tneb for breaches of the ppa have categorically prayed for appointment of an administrator to enforce .....

K. Keerthika Komathi Represented Vs. the Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Reported in : (2006)68SCL515

..... (clause nos.4 & 16). though the board of directors is empowered to alter any of the existing terms and conditions governing the deposits, yet, any alteration or amendment cannot operate retrospectively, thereby, adversely affecting the interests of the depositors. any such unilateral variation at the discretion of the board of directors, reducing the rate of interest ..... failed to make the payment to the applicant in strict compliance with the agreed terms, this bench is empowered to invoke the jurisdiction of section 45qa of the act. accordingly, the company and its board directors are hereby directed to pay in favor of the applicant the maturity proceeds of the deposits in respect of fdrs ..... of the company that there is no default on its part in makirig the payment to the applicant must fail. by virtue of section 45qa of the act, the clb is empowered to direct any non-banking financial company to make the payment of any deposit on default committed by such company in accordance with terms .....