Category: Oppression and mismanagement
-
Can Company Law Board stay its own proceedings?
Issue: Can Company Law Board stay its own proceedings? Held: yes. Agarwalla & Ors. V. Castron Mining Limited & Ors. (2012) 173 Comp Cas 117 (Cal) Appeal Dismissed. Sections 397 and 398 proceedings were filed by the appellant before the Company Law Board (CLB) on grounds of oppression. An interim order was passed by…
-
CLB: Provisions of CPC not applicable, still could be applied to suppress the mischief and advance the cause of justice
Gurpartap Singh and another v. Vista Hospitality P. Ltd. and others [2014] 186 Comp Cas 202 (Delhi) In this judgement two important questions are considered: Q-1 whether majority shareholders can file petition of oppression under section 397 of the Companies Act, 1956? Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that an objection that the petition was filed…
-
Pending challenge of arbitral award, proceedings stayed by CLB
Pending challenge of arbitral award, proceedings stayed by CLB Hotel Vellore Royal P. Ltd And Others v. P. V. Chandra Sekar And another [2010] 153 Comp Cas 214 CLB Facts: The case cited here falls under the purview of section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956. A family was associated with one hotel company and…
-
allotment of shares, appointment of Managing Director
Ashok Kumar And Others v. Shree Janki Cold Storage P. Ltd And Others [2010] 153 Comp Cas 222 (CLB) In the above case there were three main issues before the Company Law Board (‘CLB’): Whether allotment of shares can be made without proper application and notice of Board meeting not issued to all Directors? Whether…
-
interim order can be passed only in application
S.Krishnakumari and others v. G.Vijaylakshmi alias Brinda and Others, [2010] 153 Comp Cas 28 (Mad) The Company Law Board (‘CLB’) procedure prescribed under regulation 17 of the Company Law Regulations, 1991 is mandatory in nature. One of the directors had filed an application to be transposed as one of the petitioners. The CLB rejected this…
-
Appointment of Government nominee directors
‘The Company had invited deposits from the public but was unable to repay the matured deposits. Many complaints were made by the depositors to the company law board. The Company Law Board took cognizance of matter and formulated a scheme and directed the company to pay to the depositors accordingly. The company however, failed to…
-
employment/directorial complaints
In Dr. Vinod K. Jain v. BSI India (P.) Ltd. (2007) 138 Comp Cas 483 (CLB) In this case question arose – whether employment grievances or directorial complaints can be entertained in a petition under Section 397, read with section 398 of the Companies Act, 1956? It was held that in a closely held family…
-
Recall CLB Order
In N. Devendra Kumar Gupta v. Picnic Park Hotels (P.) Ltd. (2008) 142 Comp Cas 253 (CLB) A petition for oppression and mismanagement under section 397/398 of the Companies Act was filed with the Company Law Board (‘CLB’). The CLB, however, by an order stayed the proceedings till the disposal of the civil suit pending…
-
Jurisdiction of the CLB
This Supreme Court judgement on oppression and mismanagement examined, inter alia, role of the Company Law Board (CLB) in cases of sections 397/398 of the Companies Act 1956. Honorable Supreme Court observed that jurisdiction of the CLB is wide and can grant diverse reliefs to keep the company functioning and beneficial to shareholders. In the…
