Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home  Phrase:companies act 1956 section 260

Mar 31 2004

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

  • Decided on : 31-Mar-2004

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

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

  • Decided on : 30-Apr-2008

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!
Jul 27 1971

Laljibhai C. Kapadia Vs. Lalji B. Desai

  • Decided on : 27-Jul-1971

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

Laljibhai C. Kapadia and Anr. Vs. Lalji B. Desai and Ors.

  • Decided on : 27-Jul-1971

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!
Apr 15 2010

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

  • Decided on : 15-Apr-2010

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!
Jan 12 1988

Swapan Dasgupta Vs. Navin Chand Suchanti and Ors.

  • Decided on : 12-Jan-1988

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

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

  • Decided on : 16-Feb-1995

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!
Apr 12 2005

Barkha Investmnt and Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

  • Decided on : 12-Apr-2005

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : (2006)200CTR(Guj)342; [2006]281ITR316(Guj)

... of deposits from its members and which is declared by the central government to be a nidhi or mutual benefit society under section 620a of the companies act, 1956; lastly, sub-clause (vi) defines a miscellaneous finance company to mean a company which carries on exclusively, or almost exclusively, two or more classes of business referred to in the preceding sub-clauses. in ... finance company, that is to say, a company which carries on exclusively, or almost exclusively, two or more classes of business referred to in the ... making loans or advances or otherwise;(v) a mutual benefit finance company, that is to say, a company which carries on, as its principal business, the business of acceptance of deposits from its members and which is declared by the central government under section 620a of the companies act, 1956 (1 of 1956), to be a nidhi or mutual benefit society;(vi) a miscellaneous ... company before the assessee company dealt with such shares and securities during the relevant accounting period.38. in the result, the question is decided accordingly in light of the principles set out hereinbefore and the tribunal shall decide the appeal and adjust its decision in light of the aforesaid principles while finalizing the appeal under section 260(1) of the act.39 ...

Tag this Judgment!
Sep 14 2000

The Director of Income Tax Vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Mafatlal Public Cha ...

  • Decided on : 14-Sep-2000

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (2001)1BOMLR744; (2000)164CTR(Bom)97; 2001(2)MhLj695

... act] are held by the trust or institution after the 30th day of november, 1983; proviso - (iia) any ... in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11 continue to remain so invested or deposited after the 30th day of november, 1983; or (iii) any shares in a company (not being government company as defined in section 617 of the companies act, 1956 [1 of 1956), or a corporation established by or under a central, state or provincial ... asset, not being an investment or deposit in any of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11, ... law arise in this appeal under section 260-a of the income tax act.(1) whether the assessee trust was assessable as an individual and consequently entitled to deduction under section 80-l of the act? (2) whether the assessee-trust violated section 13(1)(d) of the act in the assessment year 1993-94 by not disinvesting the shares of nongovernmental companies by 31st march, 1993? ...

Tag this Judgment!
Oct 18 2000

Dushyant D. Anjaria Vs. M/s. Wall Street Finance Ltd. & Anr.

  • Decided on : 18-Oct-2000

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