Court : Company Law Board CLB
Decided on : Jun-17-1997
Reported in : (1998)91CompCas25
..... 87 comp cas 398 (clb). in this case, the company law board have relied on certain decisions of the supreme court in the context of the applicability of the limitation act, viz., nityanand m. joshi v. life insurance corporation of india, airtown municipal council v. presiding officer, labour court, air 1969 sc 1335, and came to the conclusion that the company law board is not ..... articles. in the absence of such provisions and as the company is a private company limited by shares, regulation 25 of table "a" in schedule i to the companies act, 1956, will be applicable. the said regulation 25 is reproduced hereinbelow : "25. transmission of shares.-(1) on the death of a member, the survivor or survivors where the member was a joint ..... company law board. accordingly, we hold that the petition is not hit by the limitation prescribed under the limitation act, 1963. learned counsel also argued that the petition is further hit by the time limit prescribed in section 111(3) of the companies act, 1956. in the instant case, appellant no. 1 has applied to the respondent company in june, 1993, for transmission ..... 12, 1996, jointly by smt. kana sen, shri prasenjit sen and shri premjit sen (hereinafter referred to as "the appellants") under the provision of section 111(3) of the companies act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the act"), for issuance of necessary directions to c. k. sen and company private limited (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent-company") to register the transmission of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Decided on : Aug-21-1997
Reported in : (1998)93CompCas275
..... provided the requisitionists meet the requirement of deposit for expenses, failure of which attracts penalty on the part of the company under sub-section (8) of section 188 of the companies act, 1956. in this connection, he relied upon the following decisions ;life insurance corporation of india v. escorts ltd. [1986] 59 comp cas 548, 636 ; [1986] 1 scc 264, 343 : "thus, we ..... 1. this is an application filed by ernakulam financiers and kuries private limited (hereinafter referred to as "the company") under section 188(5) of the companies act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the act"), for the following reliefs : (a) that the statement dated december 9, 1996, given by the respondents (requisitionists) need not be circulated, and (b) that no resolution ..... directors and appoint new directors.6. during the hearing, mr. philip mathew, counsel for the company, while reiterating the submissions made in the application/counter-reply, submitted that under section 188 of the act, the requisitionists must deposit the requisition at the registered office of the company not less than two weeks before any general meeting, along with a ..... , consequently, they are not guilty of violation of the interim order. in the circumstances counsel for respondents nos. 1 to 4 has prayed for dismissal of both the application and miscellaneous application.10. shri a. d. baby, counsel for the fifth respondent, while reiterating the submissions made in the counter, stated that the statement dated december 9, 1996, .....
Tag this Judgment!