Court : Company Law Board CLB Delhi
S. Balasubramanian, Chairman 1. The main ground on which this petition has been filed is that even though the petitioner, which has acquired the debt of the company, the non-repayment of which would entitle the petitioner to acquire 51 per cent, shares in the company is being denied the shares even though the company has not repaid the debt. The relief sought is that the register of membership should be rectified recording that the petitioner holds 51 per cent, shares. There are certain other allegations and consequential further reliefs have been sought. 2. The facts of the case are : M/s. Jaipur Metals and Electricals Ltd. ("the company") which was incorporated in August, 1943, is presently under the management of the officials of the Government of Rajasthan. The company had availed of loans from the IDBI at different periods by executing various loan agreements. One of the terms of these agreements is that in case of default in repayment of the loan as per the terms of the agreemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB Delhi
Reported in : 2009(150)CC850,2010(1)CompLJ107,2010(94)CLA227,2009(95)SCL263(CLB-NEWDELHI)
1. In the instant petition filed under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (the ‘Act’), the petitioners have alleged that by allotment of 1340 additional shares by the 2nd respondent to his own group, the petitioners have been converted from a majority into a minority and that he has also appointed respondents 3 and 4 as directors without the knowledge and consent of the petitioners. On the basis of these allegations, the petitioners have sought for cancellation of the allotment of additional shares and also for a declaration that the appointment of respondents 3 and 4 as null and void. When the 2nd respondent had disclosed in his reply that the petitioner-directors had also been removed as directors in an EOGM, the petitioners sought for restoration of their directorship. 2. The facts are : Amethi Hume Pipes Private Limited was incorporated in 1982. The 3rd and 4th petitioners and the 2nd respondent are brothers. The company was promoted by their father. The signato...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB Delhi
Reported in : 2010(1)Comp.LJ509(CLB-NewDelhi)
S. Balasubramanian, Chairman. 1. The petitioners representing 11.5% of the issued share capital of the company filed a petition under section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, aggrieved on account of certain alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the company (Jagatjit Industries Limited (JIL), wherein they, inter alia, sought the following reliefs: (a) That the Hon'ble Company Law Board be pleased to order that the present board of respondent No. 1 stands superseded and appoint an administrator to take charge of the management and affair of the company and its books, papers, records and documents. Further, being in-charge of the management of the respondent No. 1 company for ensuring smooth and proper functioning of the company. (b) Remove and issue a permanent injunction restraining respondent No. 2 from acting as representing himself or holding himself out to be the managing director or a director of the company in any manner whatsoever; (c) Frame a sch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB Delhi
Reported in : 2009(96)SCL342(CLB-NEWDELHI)
1. The Union of India has filed this instant petition under section 388B/397/398/408 of the Companies Act seeking various reliefs in respect of M/s. Maytas Properties Limited. The company is a closely-held public company having only 7 members and 3 directors. The main business of the company is development of residential properties in various towns. This petition was mentioned seeking for ex parte interim reliefs to restrain the respondents 2 to 4 from acting as directors, respondents 2 to 5 from dealing with their personal properties and for allowing the Central Government to appoint ten nominee directors to function as directors. Since the company had filed a caveat, I directed the petitioner to serve copies of the petition on all the respondents and kept the matter for the hearing on 24-2-2009 to decide on the interim reliefs. During the intervening period, certain shareholders and certain lenders to the company had also filed applications for impleadment/intervention. 2. I heard th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB Delhi
Reported in : 2010(97)SCL318(CLB-NEWDELHI)
1. The Union of India has filed this instant petition under sections 388B/397/398 and 408 of the Companies Act, 1956 alleging oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of M/s. Maytas Infra Limited and has sought for a declaration that none of the directors shall be eligible for appointment as a director in any other company in terms of section 388B and that for authorizing the Central Government to appoint ten nominee directors on the Board under section 408 of the Act. By way of ex parte interim relief, the Central Government has sought for restraining respondents 2 to 6 from acting as directors, for restraining the respondents from dealing with the assets of the company and also for allowing the Central Government to appoint ten nominee directors during the pendency of the petition. Since the company had filed a caveat, notices were sent to the company as well as other respondents and the arguments on interim relief were heard on 26-2-2009 and on 27-2-2009. 2. The facts of the case...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB Delhi
Reported in : 2009(95)SCL161(CLB-NEWDELHI)
1. The petitioner holding 100 shares and claiming to be entitled to 20 per cent shares in M/s. Seth Hotels Private Limited has filed this petition alleging that by issue and allotment of further shares, his percentage shareholding of 20 per cent has come down to an insignificant percentage and as such has sought for cancellation of issue and allotment of all the shares impugned in the petition. He has filed an application CA 364/2008 seeking for tagging this petition with CP 86/2006 filed by another shareholder on the same set of allegations. The respondents have filed CA 363/2008 challenging the maintainability of the petition in terms of section 399. 2. The facts of the case are that the company was a family company incorporated in 1993 with the petitioner and four of his brothers being the signatories to the memorandum and subscribing to 100 equity shares each of Rs. 10. Thus, each held 20 per cent shares in the company. The paid-up capital remained as Rs. 5,000 till 26-8-2000. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB Delhi
Reported in : 2009(148)CC629,2009(90)CLA4,2010(97)SCL49(CLB-NEWDELHI)
1. The instant application has been filed by the company seeking for various interim reliefs on the grounds stated in the application. 2. Heard on the application. Satyam episode does not require any elaboration. With the view to protect the interests of the company, its large work for customers and more so, in the larger public interest, the Union of India, invoked various provisions of the Companies Act before this Board and sought for urgent ex parte interim reliefs. Forming a prima facie opinion that there existed sufficient grounds to exercise the powers of this Board under section 403 of the Act, to regulate the affairs of the company, by an order dated 9-1-2009, while suspending the then existing Board of Directors, I also authorized the Union of India to appoint, in the name and on behalf of this Board not more than 10 eminent persons as directors of the company. Accordingly, the Central Government has appointed, for the time being, 6 eminent persons as directors. Since, they h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB Delhi
1. This is a petition filed under section 250 read with section 111 of the Companies Act, 1956 (‘the Act’) seeking for rectification of the register of members of M/s. Jagran Publications Private Ltd. (the company) by striking out the name of the 2nd respondent from the register. 2. The facts of the case are that the company was incorporated on 16-9-2005. It had two groups of shareholders, namely, UP group consisting of lineal descendents of late P.C. Gupta and M.P. Group constituting the lineal descendents of G.D. Gupta. The petitioners represent MP group and they collectively hold 30 per cent of the paid up capital of the company. The rest of their group holds further 30 per cent. This 60 per cent shares constitute 50 per cent voting rights in the company. The balance 40 per cent of shares is held by the 2nd respondent representing UP group, however, with 50 per cent voting rights in the company. Thus both the groups hold 50 per cent voting rights in the company. The tota...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB Delhi
1. In the order I am considering Company Petition No. 97 of 2006 filed by Shri Nagesh Kumar and Smt. Renu Mehra under section 397 of the Companies Act, 1956 (‘the Act’) against Nagesh Hosiery Exports Ltd. and others alleging certain acts of oppression and mismanagement. 2. The undisputed facts of the case are Nagesh Hosiery Exports Ltd. (R-1) was incorporated in 1980 having its registered office at G-32, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi. The authorised share capital of the company was initially Rs. 5,00,000 divided into 50,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. However, in the year early 1980, the authorised capital of the company was increased from Rs. 5,00,000 to Rs. 20,00,000 divided into 2,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The main objects of the company are to carry on business of manufacturing, trading rebuilding, refinishing, exporting, importing and dealing both in wholesale and in retail in tools, articles, substances, plant, machinery and commodities of al...
Tag this Judgment!