Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: company law board clb Year: 2003 Page 1 of about 6 results (0.038 seconds)

Oct 21 2003 (TRI)

Shri Chandrakant Kantilal Shah Vs. National Refinery Private

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : Oct-21-2003

Reported in : (2004)51SCL387

..... . thus, the petitioners have been excluded from participating in the day-to-day affairs and management of the company. all the negotiations made by the petitioners through intervention of the mediators for any amicable solution have failed. in this connection, learned counsel referred to the communications and legal notices exchanged between the petitioners and respondents (a-f to a-x). shri ..... back in accordance with the memorandum of understating dated 16.9.1997 which was executed by the directors and main shareholders of the company in the presence of a family mediator. accordingly respondent nos. 2, 6 & 9 were paid each a sum of rs. 16 lacs in lieu of the landed property at khari, thane district, given back to the petitioners .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 02 2003 (TRI)

Dwija Bandhu Sarkar, Nandita Vs. Dipendra Nath Chakraborty and

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : Dec-02-2003

Reported in : (2004)53SCL22

1. in this order, i am considering two petitions -cp no. 20 of 2002 and cp no. 28 of 2003 which were heard together. both the petitions relate to m/s cooch behar eye care and research centre private limited (the company).2. the petitioners in cp 20 of 2002 filed under sections 397/398 of the companies act, 1956 are respondents in cp 28 of 2003 filed under section 235(2)(a) of the companies act, 1956. the 1^st respondent in cp 20 of 2002 is the petitioner in cp 28 of 2003. the company was incorporated in july, 1995. the 1^st petitioner in cp 20 of 2002 is an eye surgeon and the 2^nd petitioner is his wife and the 3^rd petitioner who is a doctor is the brother-in-law of the 1^st petitioner. they among themselves hold 70000 equity shares of rs. 10/- each out of 1,10,000 shares being the subscribed and paid up capital of the company, thus constituting 63.67% shares in the company. the balance 40,000 shares are held by the 1^st respondent.3. arguing for the petitioners in cp 20 of 2002, shri mookerjee submitted: the setting of the company to provide eye care facilities was conceived by the 1^st petitioner, being a famous eye surgeon. the company had obtained a loan of rs. 30 lacs from west bengal financial corporation for purchase of medical equipments to be used in the eye treatment center of the company and the 1^st petitioner has invested huge funds of his own besides investment in the shares of the company.since he and the 3^rd petitioner being doctors by profession could not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 02 2003 (TRI)

Canara Bank Vs. National Power Grid Corporation

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : Jul-02-2003

Reported in : (2004)122CompCas312

1. canara bank, in its capacity as the trustee of can bank mutual fund (the fund) has filed this petition under section 111(4) of the companies act, 1956 (the act) seeking for rectification of the register of members of m/s power grid corporation limited (the company) by inserting the name of canara bank trustee-can bank mutual fund a/c centriple plus, in place of can bank financial services limited in respect of 17% bonds issued by the company of the value of rs. 48 crores.2. the facts of the case are: in the year 1992, the company had received the approval of government of india for issue of taxable/tax free bonds by way of private placement. by a letter dated 6th march, 1992, can fina offered to subscribe to 17% taxable bonds of the face value of rs. 80 crores on certain terms and conditions- that the company was to pay 4% all inclusive fee to can fina and that the company was to invest rs. 16.8 crs at 11% with can fina to be repaid after 3 months of the date of allotment and that the company was to invest further rs. 60 crores for one year under portfolio management scheme of can fina at 12% interest. by a letter dated 9.3.1992, the company conveyed that it was agreeable to make firm allotment of taxable bonds of the value of rs. 80 crores of the face value of each bond being rs. 1000/- carrying a coupon rate of 17% repayable at par after the expiry of 7 years from the date of allotment. the letter also contained certain terms and conditions inter alia including that 20% .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 10 2003 (TRI)

Machino Plastics Ltd. and Machno Vs. Caparo Maruti Ltd., Caparo India

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : Nov-10-2003

Reported in : (2004)50SCL620

1. the above mentioned petitioners have filed company petition 17/2002 against m/s caparo maruti ltd. and others under section 397/398 and 399 read with section 402 and 403 of the companies act, 1956. the main reliefs sought in the petition are as under:- a) declare respondent no. 2 to 6 disqualified of being directors of the company and remove the respondent nos. 2 to 6 from the directorship of the respondent company as they are acting contrary to their fiduciary relationship of the respondent company. b) direct the respondent no. 2 to 6 to give all details of monetary transaction between the respondent company and the companies/firms owned and controlled by their and bring back the money and make good the loss caused to respondent no. 1 company. c) direct the respondent no. 2 to 6 to render all accounts of the respondent company and bring back the money siphoned off, into the respondent company, and pay-off the loans of the petitioner companies. d) declare mr. m.d. jindal, the representative of the petitioner companies, as permanent chairman of the respondent company as would be in the best interest of the respondent no. 1 company. e) direct an independent enquiry into the affairs of the respondent company.2. the respondent nos. 1 and 2 companies namely, m/s caparo maruti ltd., m/s caparo india ltd; have filed present application no. 67/2003 under section 8(1) read with section 45 of the arbitration and conciliation act 1996. the case is covered under the provisions of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 2003 (TRI)

A.B. Appanna Vs. Southern Petrochemical

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : Jan-16-2003

Reported in : (2004)118CompCas114

1. the depositor in m/s southern petrochemical industries corporation limited ("the company") has made this application under section 58a(9) of the companies act, 1956 ("the act") submitting that the company has failed to repay on maturity the deposit amount of rs. 1,11,000/- with interest thereon. the application came up for hearing from time to time and finally on 06.01.2003.2. according to shri prakash goklaney, counsel appearing for the company, the maturity amount of rs. 1,22,685/- after deduction of tax at source in respect of the fdr no. 628591 payable to the applicant was dispatched by way of 7 warrants by registered post on 23.01.2001 in favour of the applicant, to the address furnished by him and at his risk, in accordance with the deposit terms. when the applicant complained of non-receipt of the warrants, the company, as a matter of concern, made detailed enquiries with the postal authorities and their bankers and came to realize that three warrants of rs. 20,000/- each were encashed at city union bank limited, trichy and the remaining warrants aggregating rs. 62,685/- remained unpaid. the amount of unpaid warrants was paid in march 2002 against the indemnity bond furnished by applicant. in this connection, shri goklaney referred to the correspondence exchanged in relation to this deposit transaction, viz., copy of the register postal journal (sl. no. 2 of the counter), letter dated 09.11.2001 addressed to city union bank limited (sl. no. 7), letter dated 20.11. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 24 2003 (TRI)

A.H. Ahmed Jaffer Vs. Ace Rubber and Allied Products

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : Nov-24-2003

Reported in : (2004)52SCL350

1. the substantive allegations in this petition filed under sections 397 and 398 of the companies act, 1956 ("the act") in relation to the affairs of m/s ace rubber and allied products private limited ("the company") are that the petitioners' group has been excluded from the management of the company in spite of having been a part of the management since the inception of the company; that the second respondent has not been convening and holding general or annual general or board meetings nor issuing notices to such meetings; that the second respondent failed to render accounts of the company, settle the dues of the financial institutions out of the sale proceeds of the assets of the company; and improperly managed the affairs of the company in gross violation of the statutory requirements.2. shri srinivasan ramasamy, practicing chartered accountant, while initiating his arguments submitted that the company was incorporated in september 1983 with the main object to carry on the business of manufacturers and sellers of rubber and allied products. the petitioner's father and the second respondent's father are promoters of the company. the authorised capital of the company is rs. 6 lakhs consisting of 600 equity shares of each rs. 1,000/- and paid-up capital rs. 1,56,000/- consisting of 156 equity shares of rs. 1,000/- each. the petitioner together with his family members and relatives hold 56 shares constituting 35.95 per cent and the second respondent with his family members .....

Tag this Judgment!


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