Court : Company Law Board CLB Chennai
..... group companies have defrauded not only the applicant but also the statutory authorities. the respondents 2 and 3 were found guilty under section 138 of negotiable instruments act, by the metropolitan magistrate court, mumbai on 8-8-2008 and thereby they were to suffer simple imprisonment for 4 months, during which time the ..... not for the purpose of any transaction entered into with the seventh respondent or any other company. this unauthorized transfer of huge amount would constitute an act of mismanagement and thereby funds belonging to the company came to be transferred illegally to the seventh respondent, resulting in huge losses to the company. the ..... of any such money to the seventh respondent. the unauthorized and deceitful transfer of funds belonging to the company in favour of the seventh respondent constitute an act of mismanagement in the affairs of the company. the payment was made without proper records and supporting evidence, in excess of the powers delegated by the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB Chennai
..... at the hands of the respondents 2 to 5, have invoked the jurisdiction of the company law board under sections 397, 398 and 402 of the companies act, 1956 (the act), claiming the following reliefs: (a) to pass appropriate orders for the management, regulation and conduct of the affairs of the company; (b) to supersede ..... company, while acquiring the properties. the company never undertook any business in kuwait, since it is not legally qualified to take any activities. the second respondent acted as a consultant, getting consultancy charges, which were remitted to the company periodically, as recorded in the minutes of the meetings, and audited accounts in the year ..... administrator to manage, regulate and conduct the affairs of the company. (c) to surcharge the respondents 2 to 5 in accordance with schedule xi of the act on account of misappropriation and misapplication of the companys funds; and (d) to restore in favour of the company the immovable properties located at gummidipundi ( .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB Chennai
..... to a decree of the madurai court would amount to a transfer by operation of law, falling outside the mandatory requirements of section 108 of the act. furthermore, none of the developments leading to amalgamation of tvssl with the first respondent company or extinct of tvssl shares, consequent upon allotment of equity shares ..... , 6,400 equity shares out of 7,750 suit shares came to be dematerialised and registered in the name of the concerned depository, pursuant to the depositories act, 1996. accordingly, those dematerialised shares lost their distinctive numbers, the relative share certificates were cancelled. by virtue of these subsequent events, the madurai suit as ..... the corresponding provision of section 111(5), namely, section 111(2) and (4) will also be applicable to the proceeding under section 111a. the companies act in entering the names of third persons apart from the parties to the present proceeding subject to filing of suit and petition would amount to contravention as .....
Tag this Judgment!