Court : Company Law Board CLB
1. In this order I am considering Company Petition No. 11 of 2007 filed by Sh. Sergey Ivanov under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against Artlibori Resorts Pvt. Ltd (R-1) and Ors. alleging illegal increase in the share capital; illegal allotment of shares; fabrication of resignation letters of the Petitioner and manipulation and fabrication of other documents and records of the Respondent No. 1 company resulting in mismanagement of the affairs of the company and causing oppression to the petitioner.2. The undisputed facts of the case are: M/s Artlibori Resorts Pvt.Ltd. (R-1) was incorporated on 17.3.2005 having its registered office at House No. 467, Temmar Vaddo, Assagao, Bardez, Goa-403507. The authorized share capital of the company was Rs. 1,00,000/- divided into 1000 equity shares of Rs. 100 each. The objects of the company was to construct or to acquire/purchase, lease or otherwise for the purpose of business of the company...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
1. The petitioner claiming 40% of the paid up capital of M/s. Mansani Constructions Private Limited ("the Company"), by virtue of transfer of 23,200 shares effected by certain shareholders in January 2007, has invoked the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board for reliefs under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 ("the Act"), on account of certain acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the Company and pending the making of final order, the petitioner, with a view to regulate the conduct of the Company's affairs, has been urging for interim reliefs, as under: a) to restrain the second respondent from acting as the Managing Director of the Company, stripping him of all the administrative powers; b) to appoint the petitioner as the Chairman and Managing Director of the Company; c) to restrain the second respondent from using the name "Mansani" in all his personal ventures that may be undertaken in the real estate sector; d) to direct the second respondent to pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (2008)145CompCas67
1. The applicant-petitioners have invoked the equitable jurisdiction of the Company Law Board by filing C.P. No. 46 of 2006, in June 2006, under Sections 397 & 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 ("the Act"), with a view to bringing to an end the acts complained of in the affairs of M/s Uniworth Resorts Limited ("the Company") and claiming, against the respondents, the following reliefs: (a) to declare that the agreement dated 08.03.2006 is illegal and void ab initio; (b) to annul and set aside the further issue and allotment of shares in favour of the respondents 5 & 6; and restore the shareholding pattern as of 31.03.2003 of the Company or enhance the shareholding of the petitioners to 50% by transfer of shares; and (c) to declare that the appointment of the fourth respondent as a director with effect from 06.05.2005 is illegal, null and void.2. The applicant-petitioners, during pendency of the company petition, have come out in April, 2007 with the present company application (C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
1. In this order I am considering Company Petition No. 42 of 2004 filed by Smt Lilly Uppal under Sections 397, 398, 402,403 and 406 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against M/s Shiva Cemetech Pvt. Ltd. alleging dilution of the petitioner's shareholding and illegal induction of the relatives of R-2 on the Board of R-1 with an oblique motive to gain control of the business of the R-1 company and mismanaging the affairs of the company allegedly indulging in forgery and fabrication of statutory records and documents.2. The undisputed facts of the case are: M/s Shiva Cemetech Pvt. Ltd. (R-1) was incorporated on 2.11.1995 having its registered office at 1091-92, Pipliwala Town, Opposite Gurudwara, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh.The authorized share capital of the company is Rs. 20,00,000/- divided into 20,000 equity shares of Rs. 100/- each. The main objects of the company are to produce, manufacture, mine, quarry, treat, process, refine, import, export, purchase...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
1. In this company petition, the petitioners together claiming in excess of 10% of the issued and paid up capital of M/s. Central Park Farm and Developers Private Limited, ("the Company") have invoked the equitable jurisdiction of the Company Law Board under Sections 397, 398, 402, 403 & 406 of the Companies Act ("the Act") to remedy their grievances on account of certain alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the Company at the hands of the respondents, as under: (a) to declare that the third respondent has no authority to represent as a director of the Company and execute the sale deeds in favour of the respondents 7 & 8; (b) to declare that the sale of the properties of the Company under two sale deeds dated 28.04.2005 by the third respondent in favour of the respondents 7 and 8 are null and void and not binding on the Company; (c) to declare that the form No. 32, filed with the ROC notifying that the petitioners have resigned from directorship of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (2008)144CompCas726
1. In this order I am considering Company Petition No. 86 of 2007 filed by M/s Sai Sugars Limited, Mr. Rajinder Kumar Jain and Mr. Ghanshyam Das Gupta under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against Sh. Deepak Sabharwal and Ors. praying that the allotment of shares shown by the R-1 be declared as null and void; the appointment of R-2, R-3 and R-4 and R-5 be declared as null and void; to ask the R-1 to stop violating the provisions of the Act; status quo of the company as on 28^th March 2007 be restored; to remove the Respondent from the directorship to remove the mismanagement permanently; to order R-1 to sell his and his family members' shares to the petitioner on the valuation to be done by an independent body under the guidance of the Hon'ble Bench and leave the company or purchase the shares of other shareholders at the value so fixed; and to wind up the company.2. The undisputed facts of the case are: Sai Sugar Ltd. was incorpo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (2008)145CompCas166
1. In this order I am considering Company Application No. 366 of 2007 in Company Petition No. 13 of 2007 filed by Spray Engineering Device Ltd. under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against Shree Saibaba Sugars Ltd. and Anr.(R-1) alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement and praying that (i) to direct the respondents to buy back 3,00,000 equity shares of the petitioner or to cancel the allotment of 3,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 100 each made by the respondents in the name of the petitioner and to direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 3 crores to the petitioner along with interest calculated @ 15% per annum from the date of deposit of this amount with the respondent company till the date of payment; (ii) to direct the respondents to file Form No. 32 in respect of the resignation of nominees of the petitioner namely Mr. Vivek Verma, Mr. Prateek Verma and Mr. Sanjay Gupta from the directorship of the respondent compa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
Reported in : (2008)145CompCas106
1. In the company petition filed under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 ("the Act") on account of certain acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of M/s. Firebricks and Potteries Private Limited ("the Company"), the applicant-respondents have preferred the present application, challenging the maintainability of the company petition, for not meeting the requirements of Section 399, in support of which Shri R. Venkatavaradan, learned Counsel submitted: o By virtue of Section 399, a person seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board under Section 397/398 should hold at least 10% of the shares as contemplated in Section 399(1)(a), whereas the respondent-petitioner holds 1.42% of share capital. The petitioner, therefore, does not have the requisite number of shares, to invoke the jurisdiction of the CLB. o The board of directors of the Company at the meeting held on 24.04.2006 had approved the issue of 32,500 10% redeemable cumulative preference s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
1. In the company petition filed under Sections 397, 398, 399, 402 & 403 of the Companies Act, 1956 ("the Act"), on account of certain alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of M/s.Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industry ("the Chamber"), the Chamber has come out with the present application under Sections 399 and 403 of the Act, read with regulations 44 and 47 of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991 (Regulations 1991), questioning the very maintainability of the company petition for not meeting the requirements of Section 399 of the Act, in support of which, Shri P.H.Arvindh Pandian, learned Counsel submitted: The Chamber is a Section 25 Company. By virtue of Section 399, a right to apply under Sections 397 & 398 arises only if the consent of not less than one-fifth of the total number of members is obtained. As on the date of the company petition, namely, 21.12.2006, the Chamber consisted of 1809 members, out of which the admission of 388 members made ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB
1. The petitioners constituting more than one tenth of the total number of shareholders of M/s. Gees Marine Products Private Limited, ("the Company"), aggrieved on account of certain acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the Company, have invoked the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board under Sections 397 & 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 ("the Act") with a view to bringing to an end the acts complained of by them and seeking the following reliefs: (i) to set aside the impugned allotments and transfers made to the exclusion of the petitioners; (ii) to restrain the respondents, their agents and servants from selling transferring or otherwise disposing off the assets belonging to the Company and in particular the trawlers MFV SUPERNA and MFV MICHAEL; (iii) to appoint an auditor to scrutinise the accounts of the Company from 1991 till date and submit a report to this Board; (iv) to carry out an investigation into the affairs of the Company and to surcharge the respon...
Tag this Judgment!