Skip to content

Filter by :

Search Results Judgments > Phrase: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 16 1994

Official Liquidator, Swashraya Benefit Pvt. Ltd. Vs. B.H. Talati and O ...

  • Decided on : 16-Mar-1994

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : [1996]87CompCas197(Guj)

... . Shah, J.1. These two company applications filed under section 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, raise interesting questions of interpretation of the provisions of rules 260 and 261 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, read in the context of Form No. 121 prescribed under rule 260 of the said Rules. 2. Shortly stated the question raised before this court is as to whether ... section 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, raise interesting questions of interpretation of the provisions of rules 260 and 261 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, read in the context of Form No. 121 prescribed under rule 260 of the said Rules. 2. Shortly stated the question raised before this court is as to whether a summons filed in the prescribed Form No. 121 under section ... provisions of rules 260 and 261 are to be interpreted and applied and consistent with the spirit of the said provisions as interpreted by the learned single judge of the Delhi High Court, this court is of the opinion that omission to state the grounds in the judge's summons or application under section 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, will not ... rise to these two company applications. (i) Company Application No. 8 of 1983 is filed by the official liquidator of the company named Swashraya Benefit Pvt. Limited (In liquidation) under section 543(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, (1) for a declaration that the respondents/directors of the company had misapplied, retained or become liable and/or accountable for the money of the company and (2) ...

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 ...

Apr 02 2003

Maharashtra Power Development Vs. Dabhol Power Company And Ors.

  • Decided on : 02-Apr-2003

Court : Company Law Board (CLB)

Reported in : (2003)117CompCas467

... subject to the Articles of the company. The Articles are very specific that only a nominee of the shareholders could be appointed as a director. Likewise even the reliance on Section 260 of the Companies Act to contend that anyone could be ... acting as directors of the company.20. In regard to the Board meeting on 4.6.2002 and the proceedings of the AGM held on 9.9.2002, the learned counsel submitted: In the Board meeting on 4.6.2002, Mr. Freeman was appointed only as an Additional Director in terms of Section 260 of the Act ... company.20. In regard to the Board meeting on 4.6.2002 and the proceedings of the AGM held on 9.9.2002, the learned counsel submitted: In the Board meeting on 4.6.2002, Mr. Freeman was appointed only as an Additional Director in terms of Section 260 of the Act to hold office till the next AGM. Neither this Section ... Company Law is that once a provisional liquidator is appointed in respect of a company, the Board of Directors of that company ceases to have any powers. This has been statutorily recognized by Section 491 of the Indian Companies Act. This position has been affirmed in Mayson, French and Ryan on Company ... act at all in view of the appointment of Joint Provisional Liquidators requires consideration. The general principle of Company Law is that once a provisional liquidator is appointed in respect of a company, the Board of Directors of that company ceases to have any powers. This has been statutorily recognized by Section 491 of the Indian Companies Act ...

Oct 10 2001

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs. Herbal Isolates (P) Ltd.

  • Decided on : 10-Oct-2001

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) - Cochin

Reported in : (2002)83ITD310(Coch.)

... Guide to Companies Act, A. Ramaya (11th Edn.) p. 427]. (9) In view of the above, the usage "charge" should definitely mean some income relatable to an immovable property or some charges received by the company which is not a business income. (10) The exempted income under Section 80HHC is calculated by the following formula: The processing charges Rs. 19,90,260 received is having ... immediately after rent, in the sub-section. The items mentioned are various types of income credited in P&L a/c, which are not having any nexus with business income. The word "charges" is appearing in Section 24(1)(iv) of the Act in the computation of income from house property. Similar to this, in the Companies Act also under Section 124 the word "charge" ... the Act in the computation of income from house property. Similar to this, in the Companies Act also under Section 124 the word "charge" is applied in regard to immovable property. Charge includes a lien and an equitable charge whether created or evidenced by an instrument in writing or by deposit of title deed or by an agreement to deposit [Refer Guide to Companies Act, ... hands of the assessee-company wherefrom deduction under Section 80HHC could be given. Accordingly, he negatived the contention of the assessee towards the claim of deduction of Rs. 5,83,375 made under Section 80HHC of the Act.7. This issue was taken in first appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee-company raised detailed contentions before the CIT(A): (a) Section 80HHC provides for " ...

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 25 2008

Asia Stone S.L. Vs. B. and G. Impex (P.) Ltd.

  • Decided on : 25-Sep-2008

Court : Company Law Board (CLB) - Chennai

... company application is filed under section 186(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 (the Act) before this Bench seeking various reliefs as prayed in para 8 of the application. 2. Shri A. Narayanan, learned Counsel for the applicant Company which is registered under the Laws of Spain, submitted that M/s. B.G. Impex Private Limited, the first Respondent Company herein (the Company) has been incorporated as a Private Company ... 7-2007, in terms of section 260 of the Act. The Company as on date has no directors to look after its interest or carrying on its business effectively and to get control over the business of the Company. The Company is now board less as well as director less and the applicant cannot invoke the provisions of section 169 of the Act dealing with calling of ... the Company has not stated in the Annual Return, Shri Barbera Davide and Mrs. Heide Moyano Stradmann ceased to be directors of the Company, they cannot continue as Directors of the Company by virtue of provisions of section 260 of the Companies Act, according to which the additional directors shall hold office only up to the date of the next Annual General Meeting of the company. ... Company for convening an EGM. He also submitted that the Company did not appoint any directors at the AGM, especially when the two additional directors, who were the only members of the Board at the time of holding the said AGM could hold office only upto the date of the said AGM in terms of section 260 of the Act and that the Company ...

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 ...

Dec 08 2000

B.M. Jain & Sons Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. Bombay Cable Car Co. (P.) Ltd ...

  • Decided on : 08-Dec-2000

Court : Company Law Board (CLB)

Reported in : (2002)108CompCas91

... 1. The petitioner-company claiming to hold 50 per cent shares in the Bombay Cable Car Co. P. Ltd. (the company) has filed this petition through one of its directors Shri Mahendra Kumar Jain, alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement in the company, in terms of section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act').2. The brief facts of this case are that the company was incorporated in ... directors in terms of section 260. He also pointed out that the respondents never acted in a bona fide manner in relation to the Jain Group. In this connection, he referred to Annexurc-14 wherein the company had filed a Form No. 32 with the Registrar of Companies that Shri Mahender Kumar Jain had ceased to be a director in terms of section 260 on 29-9 ... Jain, alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement in the company, in terms of section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act').2. The brief facts of this case are that the company was incorporated in 1983 with an authorized capital of 50,000 shares of Rs. 100 each by one Rashid Group, the respondents. In 1988, the 6th respondent awarded a contract to the company to set ... as Directors by virtue of section 260. In view of this, Shri Chawla contended that the CLB cannot take a different view and order restoration of their directorship.9. As far as allotment of 11,660 shares is concerned, Shri Chawla pointed out that the company had repeatedly asked the Jain Group to bring funds into the company since the company needed funds for prosecuting ...

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