Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: company law board clb Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 9 results (0.037 seconds)

Oct 26 2005 (TRI)

Tiruppur Transports Private Vs. P. Narayanaswamy,

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : Oct-26-2005

Reported in : (2006)133CompCas416

..... palanisamy naidu in the year 1984, there was an oral family arrangement about the division of assets and businesses left behind by (late) palanisamy naidu, through the intervention of certain mediators. accordingly, the various properties which stood in the name of (late) palanisamy naidu and in the name, of the firms and companies situate at tiruchy are left to the management .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 26 2005 (TRI)

Tiruppur Karur Transports Vs. T.V. Raju Naidu and P.

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : Oct-26-2005

Reported in : (2006)133CompCas64

..... palanisamy naidu in the year 1984, there was an oral family arrangement about the division of assets and businesses left behind by (late) palanisamy naidu, through the intervention of certain mediators.accordingly, the various properties which stood in the name of (late) palanisamy naidu and in the name of the firms and companies situate at tiruchy are left to the management .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 2005 (TRI)

Shobhi G Mahtani, Sheela Vs. Lilaram Shewaram (India) Private

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : Apr-20-2005

Reported in : (2007)139CompCas817

1. this company petition filed under sections 111, 397 & 398 of the companies act 1956 ('the act') alleging that the affairs of m/s lilaram shewaram (india) private limited ('the company') are being conducted in a manner oppressive to the petitioners as well as prejudicial to the interest of the company and claiming the following reliefs: a) to restrain the respondents 3 & 4 from acting as directors of the company; b) to declare that the proceedings of the extraordinary general meetings dated 01.02.2003 and 04.08.2003 as well as board meeting dated 01.02.2003 are invalid; c) to declare that the transfer of 50 shares by the second respondent to the respondents 3 & 4 is invalid and direct rectification of the register of members of the company by restoring the shares in the name of the second respondent; d) to declare that the transfer of shares by the respondents 2 to 4 in favour of the respondents 5 to 7, pursuant to the notice dated 09.07.2003 is invalid and restore the shares to the respondents 2 to 4; e) to set aside the sale of the company's property at cuddalore restoring the property to the company or to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to render accounts for the sale proceeds; f) to restrain the company from either directly or indirectly running or conducting bar and/or liquor vending or retailing in the premises belonging to the company; and g) to direct the transmission of 52 shares belonging to (late) vishindas lilaram in favour of pushpa vishindas and rectification .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 2005 (TRI)

Bpl Communications Limited and Vs. Shri T.P.G. Nambiar, Electro

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : May-06-2005

Reported in : (2006)132CompCas13

1. in the company petition filed under sections 397 and 398 of the companies act, 1956 ("the act") alleging several serious acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the respondent no. 1 company and its subsidiary companies, shri u.k. chaudhary, learned senior counsel appearing for the third petitioner and shri a.l.somayaji, learned senior counsel representing the petitioners 1 & 2, while moving the company petition claimed certain interim reliefs, which was resisted by shri anil b divan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent 1 & 2 and shri arvind p. datar, learned senior counsel representing the respondent no. 6 & 7 companies. this bench on considering the elaborate arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel, by an ad-interim order dated 11.02.2005 directed, inter alia, that "the respondent nos. 1, 6, 7 companies will not register any transfer of shares effected, if any, by members of such companies until further orders". thereafter, the respondent nos. 1, 2, 6&7 moved for vacation of the ad-interim order, upon which the order dated 11.02.2005 came to be modified on 17.03.2005 in the following manner: "any transfer of shares in the respondent nos. 1, 6 and 7 companies shall be subject to final order that may be made in the company petition. however, if any of the respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 transfers shares in or acquires shares of the respondent. nos. 1, 6 and 7 companies, he/it should give 7 days prior notice to the first petitioner to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 05 2005 (TRI)

Sporting Pastime India Ltd. and Vs. Kasturi and Sons Ltd. [Alongwith

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : Dec-05-2005

Reported in : (2007)137CompCas821

1. in this company petition filed by m/s kasturi & sons limited ("the petitioner") under sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the companies act, 1956 ("the act") alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of m/s sporting pastime (india) limited ("the company"), the respondents 1, 2, 5 and 8 to 10 have filed these applications under section 8 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 ("the act, 1996") to direct the parties for arbitration and dismiss the company petition as not maintainable both on law and facts on the premises that the grievances of the petitioner form part of an agreement dated 19.07.2004, clause 21 of which provides for resolving the disputes by arbitration and that the petitioner has already instituted the arbitration proceedings to resolve certain disputes, which are inter-connected with the acts complained of in the company petition.2. the facts, in a nutshell, which led to the present company petition are that the first respondent company incorporated in may 1994 as a 100% subsidiary of the petitioner for the sole purpose of establishing, maintaining and conducting a golf course cum beach resort could not achieve its main object and therefore the petitioner entered into an agreement with the second respondent on 19.07.2004, regarding the taking over of the company. accordingly, the second respondent acquired 90% shareholding, controlling and management interest in the company for a lumpsum consideration of rs. 2.43 crores, apart from .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 12 2005 (TRI)

Vijay R. Kirloskar and Kirloskar Vs. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. and

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : May-12-2005

Reported in : (2006)130CompCas139

1. this petition has been filed by shri vijay r. kirloskar and ors.against m/s kirloskar proprietary ltd. and ors. m/s kirloskar proprietary ltd. is a public limited company incorporated under the companies act, 1956 on 15.11.1965 having its registered office at pune.the authorized capital of the company is rs. 10 lakhs divided into 10,000 equity shares of rs. 100 each. the present paid up capital of the company is rs. 5,09,600 divided into 5096 equity shares of rs. 100 each, fully paid up. the company was formed for the purpose of centrally holding the trade marks and rights owned by the respective companies of the kirloskar group (without the goodwill) in accordance with the arrangement arrived at between the members of the kirloskar family.2. shri laxman rao started business of bicycle repairing near belgaun in maharashtra in 1888 and in 1910, commenced business in the name of kirloskar brothers. in the year 1926, kirloskar bros co. ltd. (kbl) was incorporated for manufacturing fodder cutters and iron ploughs. in 1946, kirloskar oil engines (koel) was incorporated for the manufacture of oil engines. in 1946, kirloskar electric co. ltd. (kec) was incorporated for the manufacture of electrical equipments such as motors, transformers, generators etc. in 1958, kirloskar pneumatic was incorporated for manufacturer of air compressors and pneumatic tools.during the life time of mr. laxman rao, the business was controlled and managed by him along with his sons. after his death .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 02 2005 (TRI)

Dr. Mrs. Usha Chopra Vs. Chopra Hospital P. Ltd. and ors.

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : Mar-02-2005

Reported in : (2006)130CompCas483

1. dr. mrs. usha chopra of uk has filed this petition under section 397/398 against mrs. chopra hospital pvt. ltd. and ors. the petitioner is a qualified doctor having obtained mdbs degree from ranchi and morcog from london. the present petition has been filed through the petitioners' power of attorney holder, shri kamal kapoor. the petitioner went to uk. after her marriage and started working there and became non resident indian.2. the respondent company is a private limited company and was incorporated on 13.5.1999 with only two promoters, shareholders and directors, namely the petitioner and her husband dr. satish kumar chopra. the registered office of the company is situated at dda community centre, yusaf sarai, delhi-110049. the authorized share capital of the company was rs. 1 lakh divided into 10,000 equity shares of rs. 10. the issued, subscribed and paid up capital of the company on its incorporation was 2000. the entire share capital of the company was held by, the petitioner and her husband namely, dr. satish kumar chopra.3. the fact of the case is that in the year 1981, delhi development authority floated a scheme for grant of perpetual lease - hold rights in respect of nursing home plots to nris. the petitioner applied for allotment of land for construction of a nursing home in the year 1981 under the scheme. the petitioner constructed the nursing home in or about the year 1990 as a sole proprietorship concern. the petitioner took a loan of rs. 18.50 lakhs from .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 2005 (TRI)

N. Kuberan and ors. Vs. Monarch Steels (India) Limited

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : May-11-2005

Reported in : (2006)130CompCas109

1. in the company petition filed by the petitioners under sections 397 and 398 read with section 235 of the companies act, 1956 ("the act") alleging that the affairs of m/s monarch steels (india) ltd. ("the company") are being conducted by the respondents 2 to 4, in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the company, the petitioners have made these applications (ca 91/2004) and (ca 135/2004) seeking certain amendments to the company petition and interim directions against the respondents, in support of which, shri t.k.s. bhaskar, learned counsel submitted: the respondents 2 to 4, being directors committed various acts of oppression and mismanagement and collected a large sums of money from the investors including the petitioners for putting up a factory to manufacture sponge iron and other steel products. however, no factory was ever constructed or commissioned by the respondents 2 to 4. at the same time, the respondents siphoned of the funds collected from the shareholders and presently only an amount of rs. 4,517.58 is available to the credit of the bank account maintained by the company.the respondents failed to convene any general meeting or board meeting periodically and the shareholders were kept in dark about the affairs of the company. the second respondent filed the fabricated accounts with the registrar of companies, as if the accounts were duly adopted and approved by the company from time to time. the auditor's report dated 30.04.1995 and the balance sheet as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 10 2005 (TRI)

In Re: Nuchem Limited

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : Jun-10-2005

Reported in : (2006)66SCL295

1. m/s. nuchem limited which has collected public deposits under section 58a of the companies act, 1956 has defaulted in the repayment of deposits on maturity and as such the company law board started receiving applications from aggrieved depositors in terms of section 58a(9) of the companies act, 1956. while considering these application it is transpired that the company had defaulted in repayment of deposits since may, 1996.2. the company is accepting deposits since last several years and majority of depositors are small depositors i.e. deposits between rs. 5000 to rs. 25,000/-. the company had accepted rs. 1031 lakhs from 7100 depositors.3. the company law board, northern bench, new delhi started receiving applications from the aggrieved depositors u/d. 58a(9) of the companies act, 1956.it is evidently clear that the most of the public deposits had been collected from small depositors and in view of provisions of section 58aa of the companies act, 1956, it was decided to invoke the suo moto powers of section 58a(9) and 58aa(3) of the companies act, 1956 in order to protect the interest of the small depositors and other depositors for all deposits matured and to be matured in the future.4. keeping in view the objective of safeguarding the interest of depositors, the public interest and the interest of the company, the scheme of repayment was sanctioned by this board vide its order dated 20.5.1997 directing the company to repay deposits as under .....

Tag this Judgment!


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