Court : Company Law Board CLB Kolkata
S. Balasubramanian, Chairman 1. The petitioner-DESCON holds 32.31 per cent. shares in the first respondent-company, viz., DPSCL. The second respondent-andrew (AYCL) holds 7.12 per cent.; its group companies—respondents Nos. 3 and 4, collectively hold 8.08 per cent. shares and the financial institutions—respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7, collectively hold 42.56 per cent. shares. andrew had become a sick company and in the scheme framed by the BIFR for revival, one of the stipulations was that andrew should disinvest its investments in other group companies. In view of this stipulation, andrew has to disinvest its holding of 7.12 per cent. in DPSCL. Accordingly, it had initiated steps for disinvestment of these shares. The financial institutions and the third and fourth respondents holding shares have also joined in the exercise of disinvestment. Thus, the total percentage of shares that has come for disinvestment is 57.76 per cent. DESCON has challenged this proposed sale as oppr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB Kolkata
Reported in : 2010(94)CLA299; 2010(98)SCL22(CLB-KOL.)
1. In this order, I am considering CA 203 of 2009 filed by the petitioner and CA 214 of 2009 filed by the respondents both in CP 10(KOL.) of 2009. 2. The facts of the case are that when the petition was mentioned on 9-4-2009, I passed certain ex parte interim orders in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondents filed CA 39 of 2009 seeking for dismissal of the petition or in the alternative for vacating the ex parte interim order dated 9-4-2009 on the ground that the petitioners had suppressed an order passed by Calcutta High Court on 7-4-2009. After hearing the counsel on this application and after having convinced myself that the ex parte interim order dated 9-4-2009 was obtained by suppression/non-disclosure of a material and vital fact, I vacated the said order by an order dated 27-4-2009. The petitioners thereafter filed CA 203 of 2009 seeking for the same interim reliefs that were granted in the order dated 9-4-2009. The reliefs granted therein and sought for now are: (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB Kolkata
1. In this order, I am considering CA No. 34 of 2009 filed by the respondents in CP. No. 10(KOL)/2009 seeking for dismissal of the petition or in the alternative to vacate the ex parte interim order passed by this Board on 9-4-2009 on the ground that the petitioners had suppressed an order passed by Calcutta High Court on 7-4-2009. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners filed this petition under section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) in respect of Kajaria Yarn and Twines Limited on 8-4-2009 and mentioned the same ex parte on 9-4-2009 at 2.30 PM. Considering the fact that the company is a family company and other aspects as recorded in that order, I granted certain interim reliefs; that there shall be no board/general meeting without the leave of this Board; that with immediate effect, the operation of the bank account shall be jointly by one from the respondents’ side and one from the petitioners’ side and that there shall be status quo as on that d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB Kolkata
Reported in : 2009(148)CC610,2009(96)SCL213(CLB-KOL.)
1. This is a compounding application under section 621A of the Companies Act, 1956, filed by M/s. Shaw Wallace and Company Limited (“the Company”). As per Return of Deposits, as on 31-3-1995, the company had accepted public deposits in excess of the prescribed limit to the tune of Rs. 26,02,750. As per Rule 3(2)(ii) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, the company could have accepted only Rs. 18,69,57,250 as against which it had accepted Rs. 18,95,60,000. The company had also accepted/renewed certain deposits aggregating to Rs. 2.60 lakhs without advertisement in newspapers. The company had neither filed a copy of advertisement inviting deposits nor a statement in lieu of the advertisement containing all the required particulars with the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal (RoC, West Bengal) as required under Rule 4/4A of the said Deposit Rules. In view of the violation under section 58A(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rule 3(2)(ii) and also 4/4A o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Company Law Board CLB Kolkata
Reported in : 2009(148)CC631; 2009(91)SCL231(CLB-KOL.)
1. The petitioner company has presented this petition under section 17 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”); for confirmation of the alteration to the situation clause in the Memorandum of Association of the company for shifting of the registered office of the company from the State of West Bengal to the National Capital Territory of Delhi, as approved by a Special Resolution passed in accordance with section 189 of the Companies Act, 1956, at its Annual General Meeting held on 24-9-2004. An application filed by the company seeking extension of time in filing the petition, is allowed. 2. Initially, Director, Economic Offences Investigation Cell, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal, vide his letters dated 8-7-2005, had raised certain queries in respect of the company regarding non-payment of Sales Tax/Profession Tax and non-payment of compensation to the employees for transferring the company to M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited. In reply, t...
Tag this Judgment!