Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Search > Phrase: companies act 1956 section 260 > Page 1 of about 386,998 results (0.574 seconds)

Mar 31 2004 (HC)

Maharashtra Power Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Dabhol Power Company

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2004(3)BomCR317; (2004)3CompLJ58(Bom); [2004]52SCL224(Bom)

..... 2002 as the agenda circulated for the agm of 9th september, 2002 stated that he had been appointed as additional director under section 260 of the companies act by the board. he would submit that though section 260 of the companies act, 1956 authorises the appointment of the additional director but that is not authorised by articles; the articles of association do not have a ..... v. needle industries newey (india) holdings ltd, : [1981]3scr698 the supreme court extensively considered the law and the concept of oppression with reference to section 397 of the companies act, 1956 and section 210 of the english companies act, 1948. the said summary issued by the supreme court is by way of guidance and we find that reference to the summary shall be apt to ..... ) in suresh kumar sanghi v. supreme motors ltd. [1983] 54 comp. cas. 235 considered the powers of the court while deciding the petition under sections 397 and 398 of the companies act, 1956. his lordship held that section 397 would be applicable only in the case of oppression by the majority shareholders on the minority shareholders. it is held therein that ..... relevant decisions which through light on the subject of oppression within the meaning of section 397.16. section 397 of the companies act, 1956 reads thus--'397. application to company law board for relief in cases of oppression.--(1) any members of a company who complain that the affairs of the company [are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to public interest or] in .....

Tag this Judgment!
Apr 30 2008 (HC)

Khojeste Mistree and ors. Vs. Bombay Parsi Punchayet and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2008(5)ALLMR786; 2008(4)BomCR617

..... decision of our high court in the case of dushyant d. anjaria v. wall street finance ltd. co. cases (2001) 655, wherein it is held that;the first proviso to section 260 of the companies act, 1956 provides that an additional director shall hold office only up to the date of the next annual general meeting. that means an additional director of the ..... become effective, is untenable in law. the trustees who have resigned are not required to take any steps under section 22 and the duty of the other trustees to do so. the provisions of section 22 are similar to the provisions of the companies act, 1956 under which change in directorship is required to be informed to the registrar by filing form no. 32. it ..... like filling up form 32 and sending it to the registrar were concerned, it was for the company to comply with them in conformity with the provisions of section 302 or section 303 of the companies act. where there was delay or negligence on the part of the company in intimating the registrar about the date of resignation, the director who had resigned could not be ..... company shall cease to be director of the company after the last date on which the annual meeting of the company should have been held under the companies act. in other words, the co-option of an additional director in terms of the first proviso to section 260 unless reappointed can only be up to the last date .....

Tag this Judgment!
Apr 15 2010 (HC)

Official Liquidator of Canbay Polyfilms Ltd. (In Liquidation) Vs. M.V. ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : [2010]156CompCas229(Kar)

..... is filed by the official liquidator under section 454(5) and (5a) of the companies act, 1956, read with rule 132 of the companies (court) rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act and rules'), inter alia, for taking cognisance of the offence committed by the accused in not complying with the requirement of provision of section 454 of the act and to try them for the aforesaid ..... of the companies (court) rules, 1959.11. in addition to this, he also submitted that respondents nos. 4 and 5 apart from filing the statement of affairs have admittedly attended the meeting as and when the official liquidator has called for. he further submitted that respondent no. 5 appointed as the additional director under the provisions of section 260 of the act and there ..... is no evidence to show that respondent no. 5 has been continued thereafter. in this regard, he further submitted that respondents nos. 4 and 5 have also shown a reasonable excuse for the delay in filing the statement of affairs apart from the fact that they never participated in the affairs of the company, they ..... accused by producing such cogent, clinching and clear evidence. in the light of the provisions of section 254 of the code and more particularly section 454 of the act, the evidence in this case shows that respondent no. 5 is additional director under the provisions of section 260 of the act, the period of additional director is up to the next annual general meeting. exhibit p2 .....

Tag this Judgment!
Oct 18 2000 (HC)

Dushyant D. Anjaria Vs. M/S. Wall Street Finance Ltd. and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2001ALLMR(Cri)62; 2001BomCR(Cri)180; (2001)1BOMLR387; [2001]105CompCas655(Bom); 2001(1)MhLj701; AIR2001Bom655

..... .3.93. the averments made in paras 20 and 21 of the application have not at all been controverter in the reply filed by the complainant. section 260 of the companies act reads thus -'260. additional directors. - nothing in section 255, 258 or 259 shall affect any power conferred on the board of directors by the articles to appoint additional directors:provided that such additional directors ..... parties.8. in the application made by the present petitioner seeking recall of the process, it is averred that the first accused company was incorporated under the companies act, 1956 on 17.9.91. the memorandum of articles of association of the said company shows that at that time mr. sumir nagar (accused no. 2) and ms. shankuntala nagar (accused no.4) were the directors ..... .92 on the ground that the first accused company filed in the office of the registrar of companies, the resignation of the petitioner only on 17.11.98 i.e ..... .12.92. what is stated in the reply is that the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence of his resignation as director of the first accused company as required by the provisions of companies act, 1956 and the petitioner be put to strict proof. the trial court has rejected the contention of the petitioner that he resigned as additional director on 2.12 .....

Tag this Judgment!
Sep 27 1974 (HC)

Mazda theatres Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. New Bank of India Ltd. and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : ILR1975Delhi1

..... does not contain any provision corresponding to section 3(3) of the old act. under the old act a proceeding in a wrong court was not invalid apparently even in the absence ..... regulate the procedure and do not affect any right or liability of the parties and would not be appealable. the court referred to section 202 of the indian companies act, 1913 corresponding to section 483 of the companies act, 1956 and relying upon their previous decision in shankarlal aggarwal v. shankarlal poddar, : [1964]1scr717 observed that though the words of ..... at a general meeting to be registered. this change is reflected in india also. under section 82 of the indian companies act, 1913, special and extraordinary resolutions passed at general meetings alone were capable of being registered. but section 192 of the companies act, 1956 enables written resolutions not passed at general meetings to be registered. (15) the second inroad ..... territorial jurisdiction under sections 16 and 20 will not be invalidated for want of such jurisdiction. under section 3(3) of the companies act, 1913, it was stated that nothing in section 3 shall invalidate a proceeding merely because of its being taken in a wrong court. section 10 of the companies act, 1956 corresponds to section 3 of the companies act, 1913. section 10, however, .....

Tag this Judgment!
Jul 27 1971 (HC)

Laljibhai C. Kapadia Vs. Lalji B. Desai

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : [1973]43CompCas17(Bom)

..... he retains his office as director only up to the date of this annual general meeting under provisions of section 260 of the companies act., 1956. as required by section 257 of the companies act, 1956 a notice has been received from a member signifying his intention to propose his appointment as a director. it is recommended that he be appointed as a director.' 35. ..... this meeting in respect of whom a notice as required by section 257 of the companies act, 1956 has been received by the company. 34. items nos. 3 and 4 constitute ordinary business and items nos. 7 and 8 constitute special business within ..... the board of directors on 10th april, 1969, and who ceases to hold office under section 260 of the companies act, 1956 on the date of this meeting in respect of whom a notice as required by section 257 of the companies act, 1956 has been received by the company. 32. serial no. 8 33. to appoint a director in place of shri nimjibhai chhanganlal kapadia who was appointed ..... an additional director of the company by the board of directors on 10th april, 1969, and who ceases to hold office under section 260 of the companies act, 1956, on the date of .....

Tag this Judgment!
Jul 27 1971 (HC)

Laljibhai C. Kapadia and anr. Vs. Lalji B. Desai and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1972Bom276; (1972)74BOMLR85; ILR1972Bom917

..... he retains his office as a director only upto the date of this annual general meeting under the provisions of section 260 of the companies act, 1956. as required by section 257 of the companies act, 1956, a notice has been received from a member signifying his intention to propose his appointment as a director. it is recommended that he be appointed as a director'.explanatory statement ..... the board of directors on 10th april 1969 and who ceases to hold officer under section 260 of the companies act, 1956 on the date of this meeting in respect of whom a notice as required by section 257 of the companies act 1956 has been received by the company. 24.items nos. 3 and 4 constitute ordinary business and items nos. 7 and 8 constitute special business within the ..... companies act, 1956 has been received by the company. serial no. 8 : to appoint a director in place of shri nimjibhai chhaganlal kapadia who was appointed an additional ..... - election. serial no. 7 : to appoint a director in place of shri laljibhai chhaganlal kapadia who was appointed an additional director of the company by the board of directors on 10th april 1969 and who ceases to hold office under section 260 of the companies act, 1956 on the date of this meeting in respect of whom a notice as required by s. 257 of the .....

Tag this Judgment!
Jan 12 1988 (HC)

Swapan Dasgupta Vs. NavIn Chand Suchanti and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : [1988]64CompCas562(Cal)

..... . it was also not shown that the appellant has been appointed a director by the shareholders of the said company at any annual general meeting. on the facts, it was necessary for the court to construe the scope and effect of section 260 of the companies act, 1956, in the case of the appellant. the learned judge noted that the appellant had made out a contrary ..... was stated that the appellant continued to hold office as an additional director of the said company only up to the date of the said annual general meeting.19. under section 260 of the companies act, 1956, and also under article 111 of the articles of association of the said company, the appellant, as an additional director, could hold his office only up to the date of ..... case before the company law board contending that he was appointed as an additional director of the said company on august 16, 1986, and that there was no evidence that ..... the next annual general meeting of the said company. in the premises, on the date of the next annual .....

Tag this Judgment!
Feb 16 1995 (HC)

C.R. Priyachandrakumar and Others Vs. Purasawalkam Permanent Fund Ltd. ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1995]83CompCas150(Mad)

..... conclusion of this annual general meeting. notice under section 257 of the companies act, 1956, together with deposit of rs. 500 has been received by the ..... company from a member signifying his intention to propose the candidature of thiru ..... '.' 19. the first respondent has furnished an explanatory statement under section 173(2) of the companies act for both the items. item no. 7 : thiru n. g. manavalan was appointed as additional director of the company with effect from february 23, 1994. according to the provisions of section 260 of the companies act, 1956, thiru n. g. manavalan will be holding office until the ..... there was no nomination for his election as a director of the first respondent and a sum of rs. 500 was not paid under the provisions of section 257 of the companies act, 1956. 5. it is contended that one gopalratnam, a director of the first respondent, resigned his post and in his place mohanakrishnan was appointed in the casual .....

Tag this Judgment!
Feb 16 2006 (TRI)

In Re: Home Trade Limited

Court : SEBI (Securities & Exchange Board of India) / Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT)

..... executive directors similarly, shri vijay h modi, salil dinkarlal gandhi and shashank g.ranade were appointed as additional directors under section 260 of the companies act, 1956. it is seen that none among these directors were involved in the decision making process or the day-to-day administration of the ..... agm. rest of the additional directors had also claimed that they ceased to be directors due to the operation of law as per section 283(g) of the companies act, 1956, though, they have not disputed their directorship in htl during the second phase of manipulations. though mr dilip jain was director in both ..... to be a director of htl by operation of law in terms of section 283(g) of companies act, 1956. further, it was stated that he had resigned from the board of directors of htl in terms of 303(2) of the companies act, 1956.4.1 further, an opportunity for personal hearing was granted to the ..... submitted that he ceased to be a director after the agm held on september 29, 2001 as the said appointment was not regularized as per section 260 of the companies act, 1965. he stated that he had not signed form no 29 or giving consent for regularizing the appointment in the aforesaid agm. he had ..... submitted that he ceased to be a director after the agm held on september 29, 2001 as the said appointment was not regularized as per section 260 of the companies act, 1965. he stated that he had not signed form no 29 or giving consent for regularizing the appointment in the aforesaid agm. he further .....

Tag this Judgment!
Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //