Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: company law board clb Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 10 results (0.082 seconds)

May 14 2004 (TRI)

Shri T.O. Aleyas, Shri Bobby Vs. St. Mary'S Hotels Private Limited

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : May-14-2004

..... the district munsiff court, ernakulam filed by the first petitioner for an order of injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in the affairs of the hotel was settled through common mediators. while, the civil suits have been filed by the petitioners for enforcing their civil rights they have approached the clb for comprehensive reliefs against the acts of oppression and mismanagement .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 18 2004 (TRI)

R. Balakrishnan and ors. Vs. Vijay Dairy and Farm Products

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : Nov-18-2004

Reported in : (2005)125CompCas661

..... the agreement resigned from the board of directors of the company and handed over all the share certificates together with the signed transfer deeds to k.rangarajan, one of the mediators, who must hold them in trust until the amounts due under the agreement are fully paid by the respondents to the petitioners. though the respondents have paid an aggregate sum .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 29 2004 (TRI)

Vijaya Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Peerless General Finance and

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : Oct-29-2004

Reported in : (2006)129CompCas733

1. this is a petition filed under section 111a of the companies act, 1956, seeking for rectification of the register of members of m/s.peerless general finance and investment company ltd. (peerless). the facts of the case are : one m/s. poddar udyog limited (udyog) held 2,18,240 shares of peerless. by an order dated august 19, 1997, the calcutta high court sanctioned a scheme of arrangement amongst others between udyog, poddar projects limited (projects) by which certain properties, rights and interests of udyog were transferred to and vested in projects. the impugned shares were also a part of the assets transferred by that scheme. on or about september 3, 1999, projects sold the impugned shares to m/s. vijaya finance corporation (vijaya) for a consideration of about rs. 41.46 lakhs by executing relevant transfer instruments. projects also executed a power of attorney dated july 30, 2001, in favour of vijaya to exercise all rights in respect of the impugned shares and executed fresh transfer deeds on september 14, 2001, in favour of vijaya. by a letter dated november 12, 2001, vijaya lodged these share certificates along with the instruments of transfer with peerless for registration of transfer in favour of vijaya.peerless refused to register the transfer by a letter dated january 9, 2002. thereafter, by virtue of the power of attorney, vijaya again lodged the share certificates along with the order of the calcutta high court sanctioning the scheme, seeking for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 23 2004 (TRI)

Sh. Harish Kumar Berry Vs. S. Berry'S Automotive Udyog Pvt.

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : Aug-23-2004

Reported in : (2005)60SCL531

1. sh harish kumar berry, is a non-resident indian residing at canada for last more than 2 years has earlier filed a similar company petition no. 34 of 2002 through his nephew diraj sobti as his attorney. since the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 are the real brother.petitioner applied to this board for withdrawal of the said petition.consequently, vide orders dated 10.12.2002 the company petition no. 34 of 2002 was allowed to be withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioner to re-agitate the allegation and hence this petition.2. the learned counsel for petitioner submitted: - the respondent no. 1 is a family company by the name m/s s. berry & automotive udyog the company was incorporated on 9.8.1985 under the provisions of companies act, 1956 registered with registrar of companies, delhi & haryana having its registered office at d-77, okhla industrial area, phase i new delhi. the share capital of the company is rs. 5,00,000 divided into 5000 shares of rs. 10 each. the company was established to carry on the business of buying selling dealing in all and any kind of spare parts, auto parts, components and accessories of motor cycle, scooter, mopeds and every other kind of other automobile vehicle, car jeep, buses etc. the petitioner has 40% of the share holding in the respondent company and hence entitled to file the present petition under section 397/398 of the companies act 1956. the petitioner before immigrating to canada appointed his late father colonel g.l. .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 2004 (TRI)

Aes Opgc Holding (Mauritius) and Vs. Orissa Power Generation

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : May-06-2004

Reported in : (2005)125CompCas299

1. the main complaint of the petitioners in this petition is about the role and conduct of the nominee directors of a state government, which has divested 49% shares in its wholly owned power generating company in favour of the petitioners as a part of power sector reforms, on the ground that such act and conduct of these directors are in breach of the fiduciary duties owed by them to the company and also oppressive to the minority shareholders.2. the facts of the case are that orissa power generation corporation (the company) was incorporated in november 1994 as a 100% orissa government owned company. the main object of the company is to establish, operate and maintain electricity power generating the year 1998, in pursuance to its policy of reform in the power sector, the orissa government decided to divest 49% shares in the company in favour of a strategic partner through international competitive bidding. by a detailed shareholders agreement between the government of orissa and aes corporation, delaware, usa, 41% shares were transferred to the petitioners and another 8% shares were allotted for a total consideration of rs. 603.4 crores. most of the terms of the shareholders agreement have been incorporated in the articles of association of the company. the entire electricity power generated by the company is to be supplied to grid corporation of orissa which is a 100% government company. in turn, gridco supplies the entire power to various distribution .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 12 2004 (TRI)

Gopal K. Maheswari Vs. Hawk Multimedia Private Limited,

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : Oct-12-2004

Reported in : (2005)126CompCas76

1. the applicant has filed this application under section 58a(9) of the companies act, 1956 ("the act"), seeking the following reliefs: (i) to direct m/s. hawk multimedia private limited ("the company") and its directors to issue deposit receipts acknowledging the deposits accepted from the applicant; (ii) to direct the respondents to repay the principal amount of the deposits together with the interest; and (iii) to award cost and other expenses connected with filing of the application.2. the facts, in brief, as set out in the application are that the company engaged in multimedia activities has been promoted by the respondents 2 to 4. the second respondent is son of the applicant. the company could not carry on its business with its existing share capital, compelling the directors to approach among others the applicant for financial assistance by way of fixed deposit, repayable with interest at 18 per cent per annum within a period of two years.accordingly, the applicant had remitted an aggregate sum of rs. 1,70,000/- in three instalments, viz., rs. 1,00,000/- on 03.12.2001 and rs. 35,000/- on 25.06.2002 by way of cheques. though these cheques were realized, the company neither issued any fixed deposit receipts nor repaid the deposit amount, in spite of repeated demands made by the applicant. hence, this application.3. according to shri. k. ramaswamy, counsel appearing for the respondents 1, 3 & 4, the company never accepted any deposit from the applicant and did not enter .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 21 2004 (TRI)

Serum Institute of India Ltd. Vs. Inderjit Properties Pvt. Ltd. and

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : Dec-21-2004

Reported in : (2006)129CompCas757

1. in this order, i am considering ca 356 of 2004 filed by the respondents in the company petition no. 68 of 2004. in this application, the respondents have sought for vacation of the exparte interim order passed by me on 12.10.2004 and also for dismissal of the petition in terms of section 399 of the companies act (the act) 2. the facts of the case in a nutshell arc: the 1^st respondent company is the sole and absolute owner of bungalow no. a on the 4^th floor of the complex known as "swapnalok" in mumbai. this is the only asset of the company. the paid up capital of the company consists of 1000 equity shares of rs. 100/- each held by respondents 2 to 5. the petitioner entered into an agreement on 22nd november, 2001 for purchase of all the 1000 shares held by these respondents at a consideration of rs. 1,25,800 per share totaling to rs. 12.58 crores. this consideration for shares was effectively the value of the bungalow owned by the company.on the same day, another supplementary agreement was entered into by which the petitioner was to pay rs. 191.126 lacs for 152 equity shares pending payment for the balance 848 shares. in terms of this supplementary agreement, the petitioner paid for the 152 shares held by the 3^rd, 5^th and the 6^th respondents who in .turn delivered transfer instruments along with share scripts to the petitioner. thereafter, certain disputes had arisen between the parties, which resulted in filing of a suit no. 743 of 2002 by the petitioner wherein it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 25 2004 (TRI)

Shri NavIn R. Shah, Smt. Chandri N. Vs. Simshah Estates and Trading Co ...

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : Oct-25-2004

Reported in : (2005)128CompCas55

1. this petition has been filed by navin r. shah, son of ramji shah of murabai and ors against m/s simshah estates and trading co. pvt. ltd. and ors. the respondent no. 1 company m/s simshah estates and trading co. pvt. ltd was incorporated on 29.10.84. the authorized capital of respondent company is rs. 10 lakh consisting of 8000 equity shares of rs. 100/- each and 1000/- 1% redeemable preference shares of rs. 100 each and 1000/- 2% redeemable preference shares of rs. 100 each, together aggregating to rs. 2 lakhs. the paid up capital of the company is rs. 8 lakhs consisting go of rs. 8 lakhs fully paid. the main business of respondent no. 1 company is to purchase, acquired, sell, dispose of and deal movable and immovable of all kinds etc.2. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are shareholders of the respondent no. 1 company holding together a total of 4123 shares constituting 51,53% of the fully paid up capital of the respondent company and are entitled to file this petition under section 397/398 of the companies act, 1956. the petitioner no. 1 is one of the directors of the respondent no. 1 company holding 251 shares, the petitioner no. 2 holds 655 shares and petitioner no. 3 holds 3250 shares. the respondent no. 1 company is having its regd. office at mumbai and the respondent no. 2 is the cousin brother of petitioner no. 1. the respondent no. 3 is the wife of respondent no. 2. the respondent no. 6 is the brother of petitioner no.1. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 2004 (TRI)

Smt. Nina Gupta and ors. Vs. Pearey Lal and Sons (P) Ltd. and

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : Jan-05-2004

Reported in : (2004)2CompLJ405

1. the petitioners have filed ca 135 of 2000 under section 634a of the act seeking for enforcement of the order of this bench dated 25.9.1996 where in this bench had recorded the following statement made by the counsel for the parties: "parties have agreed to settle all disputes and differences regarding all family assets including group companies plus trusts, societies and other assets owned/controlled by the family members. parties have agreed and do hereby constitute a committee of their respective senior advocates, mr. a.n. haksar and mr. rajiv sawhney to decide all matters in order to settle all the disputes and differences between them. parties will file their respective lists of family assets/liabilities by 15^th oct. 1995 with the committee and will provide all necessary assistance including any papers/documents etc. as required by the committee. all unanimous decisions taken by the committee will be final and binding on all the parties. all disputes/litigations would stand resolved in terms of unanimous decisions of the committee and all proceedings will stand adjourned pending the final decision. the committee shall be entitled to issue directions pending the final decision. the committee shall endeavor to complete this process expeditiously preferably within 4 months from today".2. however, on 11.10.1998, the respondents filed ca 299 of 1998 seeking for resumption of the proceedings before this bench as the 4th respondent who would have been instrumental in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 06 2004 (TRI)

Shri J. Satyanarayana Vs. the Purasawakum Permanent Fund

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : Dec-06-2004

Reported in : (2006)131CompCas493

1. this is an application filed by shri j. satyanarayana, son as well as nominee of late j.v. krishnan, under section 45qa (2) of the reserve bank of india act, 1934 ('the act') claiming refund of the deposit amount of rs. 10,000/- along with interest from the purasawakum permanent fund limited .('the company'). the facts in brief are that j.v. krishnan, since deceased had deposited a sum of rs. 10,000/- with the company on 04.05.1994 in fixed deposit account (no. 45563) for a period of 36 months. the deposit was matured on 04.05.1997. in the meanwhile, j.v. krishnan had expired on 2.11.1995 i.e., prior to maturity of the deposit. according to the applicant, he came to know of the deposit made by his father only in august, 2004 on vacating the premises, where his father lived upon which immediately contacted the company for getting the maturity amount. however, the company reported that it had transferred the maturity amount to the investor education and protection fund, constituted under section 205c of the companies act, 1956. hence the present application.2. according to shri t.k. seshadri, learned counsel, j.v. krishnan had deposited a sum of rs. 10,000/- for a period of three years which was matured on 04.05.1997. the company never received any communication from j.v. krishnan on maturity of the deposit either for renewal or for repayment. the company deputed one of its staff members to the depositor's residence, viz., shri sai kripa, 4, 2^nd cross street, shastri nagar .....

Tag this Judgment!

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