LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label company petition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label company petition. Show all posts
Saturday, November 30, 2013

Company petition = Since company not paid entire sale consideration after allotment of plot by the A.P.I.I.C.Ltd., - and after cancellation of plot and forfeit of amount, the official liquidator of the company can not lay any rights over the plot which was cancelled by the A.P.I.I.C.Ltd., as ownership was not transferred = The A.P.I.I. Corpn. Ltd. .....Appellant. Versus M/s. Team-Asia Lakhi Semiconductors Ltd. (in liquidation) rep. by the Official Liquidator, Hyderabad & Anr. …..Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41026

›
Company petition = Since company not paid entire sale consideration after allotment of plot by the A.P.I.I.C.Ltd., - and after cancellation...
Sunday, April 7, 2013

In a company petition, when the petitioner not gave fair fight and when compromised to the prejudice of other share holders, any share holder can question the same = for the purpose of recalling the order of dismissal of the said appeals, and for the transposition of the Chatterjee brothers as proforma respondents, whilst substituting the appellant as the sole appellant therein.= The said application is maintainable under Section 397, where the affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner that is prejudicial to public interest, or in a manner that is oppressive with respect to any member or members of the company.- where the Company Petition is filed with the consent of the other shareholders, the same must be treated in a representative capacity, and therefore, the making of an application for withdrawal by the original petitioner in the Company Petition, would not render the petition under Sections 397 or 398 of the Act 1956, non-existent, or non-maintainable. The other persons, i.e., the constructive parties who provide consent to file the petition, are in fact entitled to be transposed as petitioners in the said case. Additionally, in case the petitioner does not wish to proceed with his petition, it is not always incumbent upon the court to dismiss the petition. The court may, if it so desires, deal with the petition on merit without dismissing the same. Further, there is no requirement in law for the shareholder himself, to give consent in writing. Such consent may even be given by the power of attorney holder of the shareholder. If the shareholder who had initially given consent to file the Company Petition to help meet the requirement of 1/10th share holding, transfers the shares held 11Page 12 by him, or ceases to be a shareholder, the same would not affect the maintainability and continuity of the petition.

›
Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 361-362 of 2005 Bhagwati Developers Pr...