Skip to content


Search Results Judgments > Act:COMPANIES ACT, 1956 Section 260

Jul 27 1971

Laljibhai C. Kapadia Vs. Lalji B. Desai

  • Decided on : 27-Jul-1971

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : [1973]43CompCas17(Bom)

... 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. 34. Items Nos. 3 and 4 constitute ordinary business and Items Nos. 7 and 8 constitute special business within the meaning of section 173 of the Act. Being special business Items ... 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 section 257 of the Companies Act, 1956 has been received by the company. 34. Items Nos. 3 and 4 constitute ordinary ... 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 section 257 of the Companies Act, 1956 has been received by the company. 32. Serial No. 8 33. To appoint a ... 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 ...

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

... 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 meaning of Section 173 of the Act. Being special business ... who was appointed an additional Director of the Company by 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 ... Company. Serial No. 8 : to appoint a Director in place of Shri Nimjibhai 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 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 ... 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 Director of the Company by 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 ...

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)

... 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 ... Section 397 of the Companies Act approached the Company Law Board with collateral motive.15. Before we consider the points that arise for our consideration, we shall advert to statutory provision contained in Section 397 and the few 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 ... in Section 397 and the few 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 ... company petition for diverse reliefs was filed by the petitioner under Sections 397, 402, 403 and 406 of the Companies Act, 1956. In view of the events that had taken place subsequently, the company petition was permitted to be amended. In the amended company petition the petitioner prayed that it be declared that the affairs of the Dabhol Power Company (for short 'the company ...

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)

... 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 conclusion of this annual general meeting. Notice under section 257 of the Companies Act, 1956 ... 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 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 ... section 260 of the Companies Act, 1956, Thiru N. G. Manavalan will be holding office until the 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 N. G. Manavalan as a director of the company ... our company. Therefore, it is considered appropriate that he should be appointed as a director of the company. Hence, the board recommends passing of the resolution under item No. 7. Thiru N. G. Manavalan is willing to act as director, if so appointed and has filed with the fund his consent under section 264(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. ...

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

... 92, under section 260 of the Companies Act, even if it is held that he had not resigned on 2.12.92, he ceased to be director on the last date on which the first annual general meeting of the first accused company should have been held under section 166, first proviso of Companies Act. According to him, the first accused company was initially the private limited company incorporated on ... 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 of the first accused company. It is also stated in the applicationthat on 13 ... first accused company on 13.4.92, under section 260 of the Companies Act, even if it is held that he had not resigned on 2.12.92, he ceased to be director on the last date on which the first annual general meeting of the first accused company should have been held under section 166, first proviso of Companies Act. According to him, the first accused company was initially ... 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 2.12.92 on the ground that the first accused company filed in the office of the Registrar of Companies, the resignation of the ...

Sep 24 2009

Unity Realty and Developers Ltd., under the Companies Act, 1956 Vs. BW ...

  • Decided on : 24-Sep-2009

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2010(1)BomCR333; 2009(111)BomLR3853

... Act and even if disputes are pending between the parties and/or various aspects of the company matters need to be dealt with as per the provisions of the Companies Act like Sections 260 - 262, 284, 319, 330 including the facets of alleged resignations, collusion, fraud, need detail trial. If action is within law then only question of rectification under the provisions of the Companies Act, ... the provisions of the Companies Act like Sections 260 - 262, 284, 319, 330 including the facets of alleged resignations, collusion, fraud, need detail trial. If action is within law then only question of rectification under the provisions of the Companies Act, and not otherwise.79. The meeting is of 21.05.2009. The resolutions were passed accordingly. The respondents have acted based upon the ... Ors. : (1992) 1 SCC 160] The transfer of shares means the transfer of rights. In view of this, the submission based upon Sections 83, 108(3) of the Companies Act read with Sections 10 and 11 of the Depository Act, 1996, is unacceptable. The transfer of the shares and its effect is important disputable and arbitrable issue in the present matter at ... within law then only question of rectification under the provisions of the Companies Act, and not otherwise.79. The meeting is of 21.05.2009. The resolutions were passed accordingly. The respondents have acted based upon the same and corrected the various record. The petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Act and filed the present Petition on 01.06.2009. The ...

Feb 16 2006

In Re: Home Trade Limited

  • Decided on : 16-Feb-2006

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

... 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 company. It is also noted that none of the said directors had attended ... 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 ... 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 the phases, Manoj Shah had shares of the company and all of them were directors in ... 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 ... 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 ...

Aug 08 1961

Jwala Prasad Vs. Official Liquidator Jwala Bank Ltd.

  • Decided on : 08-Aug-1961

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1962All486

... to a claim of the company. Reference was made in this connection to the case Of Official Liquidator v. Liaqat Husain : AIR1935All205 where it was held that a proceeding started under Section 235, of the Companies Act was not a suit or other legal proceeding within the meaning of Section 260 of the Companies Act, while considering the nature, of proceedings under Section 235 Young, J. ... that a proceeding started under Section 235, of the Companies Act was not a suit or other legal proceeding within the meaning of Section 260 of the Companies Act, while considering the nature, of proceedings under Section 235 Young, J. observed in that case :'A misfeasance proceeding is merely am examination by the court into the conduct of an officer of the company, and as a ... banking company and in any case it did not relate to a claim of the company. Reference was made in this connection to the case Of Official Liquidator v. Liaqat Husain : AIR1935All205 where it was held that a proceeding started under Section 235, of the Companies Act was not a suit or other legal proceeding within the meaning of Section 260 of the Companies Act, ... Section 235 was not by the banking company and in any case it did not relate to a claim of the company. Reference was made in this connection to the case Of Official Liquidator v. Liaqat Husain : AIR1935All205 where it was held that a proceeding started under Section 235, of the Companies Act was not a suit or other legal proceeding within the meaning of Section 260 ...

Apr 09 2009

Pioneer Bakeries (P) Ltd., Vs. New Hope Food Industries Pvt. Ltd.,

  • Decided on : 09-Apr-2009

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB)

... the directors of the applicant company in terms of section 260 of the Companies Act, 1956 on the last date by which the annual general meeting for the relevant year was required to be held in terms of section 166 read with section 210 of that Act, which date was 30th September, 2003. It is submitted that as a consequence of Order of the Company Law Board dated 07. ... in terms of first proviso to section 260 of the Companies Act, 1956. It was also submitted that Mr. Jayakrishnan is self proclaiming and styling himself as the managing director of the applicant company from 30th July 2003. Such purported appointment of Mr. Jayakrishnan as managing director is illegal and void and oppressive and it is so held by the Company Law Board. The High Court ... Arumugam, which is held by the Company Law Board vide its Order dated 07.03.2007 in C.P. No. 50/2003 to be illegal and oppressive. In any event, the said directors having been appointed only as additional directors, have ceased to be the directors of the applicant company in terms of section 260 of the Companies Act, 1956 on the last date by which ... directors of the applicant company as of 12.04.07 continue as directors. He strenuously contended that the affidavits of Additional directors ratifying the act of institution of present rectification proceedings by Mr. Jayakrishnan are not valid documents as they are deemed to have ceased to be directors in terms of first proviso to section 260 of the Companies Act, 1956. It was also submitted ...

Jan 12 1988

Swapan Dasgupta Vs. Navin Chand Suchanti and Ors.

  • Decided on : 12-Jan-1988

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : [1988]64CompCas562(Cal)

... company. Section 283 of the Companies Act, 1956, provided for vacation of office by directors of a company in certain contingencies. In that section, it was not provided that the first directors of a private company appointed by its articles would vacate their offices at the next general meeting.46. To appreciate the controversies involved, it is convenient to refer to the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 :'Section ... 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 the next annual general meeting of the said company ... company appointed by its articles would vacate their offices at the next general meeting.46. To appreciate the controversies involved, it is convenient to refer to the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 :'Section 2(26): 'Managing director' means a director who, by virtue of an agreement with the company or of a resolution passed by the company ...

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