Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: promoters companies act Page 1 of about 31,252 results (0.078 seconds)

Feb 22 2007 (TRI)

In Re: Atlanta Ltd.

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

..... group is combined with the promoters holding of 70.55%, the public holding in the company falls below the minimum statutory requirement of 25% of the total capital for the purpose of a ..... engineering pvt ltd (dcb a/c no. 06120122 and 061240273). bharat infrastructure and engineering pvt ltd is yet another company of the promoters, which prima facie acts routes funds to both ideal toll road and family members who in turn deal with accounts of the promoters. further, rikiin bbarot (dcb a/c no. 061111727) and bhavana barot (dcb a/c no. 061111736), who received ..... two months of the ipo, at an attractive price as compared to that prevailing in the market, it prima facie appears that manish marwah/dilip nabera group are linked to company and promoters and are acting in concert. hence, when holding of entities of the marwah/nabera group (7.27%) is combined with that of the ..... marwah/dilip nabera group. in view of this action of the company, in conjunction with the findings from trading data as also the company's announcement of 25/10/2006 labelling these beneficiary entities as 'strategic investors', it prima facie appears that manish marwah/dilip nabera group are linked to company/promoters and acting in concert. hence, when holding of entities connected with marwah/nabera .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 07 2001 (TRI)

Asstt. Cit Vs. Vadilal Finance Co. (P) Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad

Reported in : (2002)74TTJ(Ahd.)933

..... finance business of providing finance in any manner whatsoever as can conveniently and efficiently be carried on with the business of a financial, company.the learned counsel for the assessee explains that the appellant-company acting as promoter company decided to promote the company styled as super milk makers (p) ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "smmpl") and invested rs. 13.04 lakhs for acquiring ..... of interest in respect of reversal of interest income in a subsequent year is not permissible under any provisions of income tax act, 1961. he pointed out that the first document where the assessee in their capacity as a promoter company undertook to give interest-free loan at the extent of rs. 18.50 lakhs and further loan of rs. 21 ..... counsel submitted that interest was initially wrongly charged by the assessee on loans and advances given to "smmpl" contrary to the aforesaid obligations undertaken by the assessee as a promoter company to advance interest-free loans upto the limit stated above and to advance further loan on interest at the rate of 14 per cent. the excess amount of interest ..... 13,000 shares of "smmpl" and also gave loans and advances to the said company from time to time. the state industrial & investment corporation of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 07 2001 (TRI)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Vadilal Finance Co. (P) Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad

..... finance, business of providing finance in any manner whatsoever as can conveniently and efficiently be carried on with the business of a financial company.5. the learned counsel for the assessee explains that the appellant-company acting as promoter company decided to promote the company styled as super milk makers (p) ltd. (in short "smmpl") and invested rs. 13.04 lacs for acquiring 13,000 ..... granting deduction of interest in respect of reversal of interest income in a subsequent year is not permissible under any provisions of it act, 1961. he pointed out that the first document where the assessee in their capacity as a promoter company undertook to give interest-free loan at the extent of rs. 18.50 lacs and further loan of rs. 21 lacs ..... counsel submitted that interest was initially wrongly charged by the assessee on loans and advances given to "smmpl" contrary to the aforesaid obligations undertaken by the assessee as a promoter company to advance interest-free loans upto the limit stated above and to advance further loan on interest at the rate of 14 per cent. the excess amount of interest ..... shares of "smmpl'- and also gave loans and advances to the said company from time to time. the state industrial & investment corporation of maharashtra ltd. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 2004 (TRI)

In Re: Tauruas Portfolio Limited

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

..... the form of bank credit which they have subsequently failed to repay. in this regard, i note that m/s. tauruas portfolio ltd have denied the charge that they acted alongwith the promoter companies. 6.1.20 it was noticed from the bank statements of sumac iron & steels pvt. ltd. and arunodaya vinimay pvt. ltd. that there were frequent transfer of funds to ..... , 2000 is as under 6.3.2 i note that the shareholding pattern of promoters, promoter companies and "other bodies corporate" are as under :sr. no.name of company no. of shares % of shareholding11. total 6.36734 promoter companies 6.3.3 i note that the three promoter companies and "other bodies corporate" have acted together. in this regard, i note that the distribution schedule dated the 7th january ..... promoter group / associate holdings had dealt in the ..... extent of 92.41% of the company as on 07.01.2000. thus all these companies were acting in concert. the general public were holding to the extent of only 5.11 % in january 2000 and which has further reduced to 1.39% in may 2000. 4.1.8 besides the promoter companies the following 16 promoter group / associate companies which form part of the above mentioned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 2011 (TRI)

Srm Energy Limited Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India Sebi Bha ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

..... appellant came out with a rights issue and since these loans do not comply with the stringent conditions prescribed by the proviso to section 81(3) of the companies act, the loans of the promoter could not be converted and the board was right in giving such a direction in the impugned communication. the argument is that only such loans can be converted ..... raised. 6. now coming to the case in hand, it is common ground between the parties that the unsecured loans of sepl, the promoter of the appellant do not meet the requirements of section 81(3) of the companies act. this being so, the said provision is not applicable. it is also not the case of either party that a preferential allotment of ..... cent shares in this company. some time around december, 2007, sepl received a letter of facilitation from the government of tamil nadu for setting ..... are as under:- 2. the appellant was incorporated as a public limited company in the year 1985 under the name and style of hitkari fibers limited. its shares are listed on the bombay stock exchange. spice energy pvt. ltd (for short sepl) is another company incorporated under the companies act, 1956 and promoted by the rastogi family of delhi which owns more than 80 per .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 25 1956 (HC)

David Mitchell Vs. Commr. of Income-tax, West Bengal

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1956Cal516,[1956]30ITR701(Cal)

..... viewed is furnished by the recitals at the beginning of the agreement of 12-8-1946. it is there stated that the promoters had promoted a public limited liability company 'recently' and that the assessee had assisted the promoters in their company promotion and had acted as their financial adviser. the exact date on which the shares were given to the assessee is again not known, but ..... as follows :'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the sums of rs. 2,75,191/- and rs. 78,052/- paid as premia by the promoters of the company for the assessment years 1947-48 and 1948- 49 were assessable to income-tax as income in the hands of the assessee?'6. it appears that, during the assessment ..... was an accountant by profession and a partner of messrs. lovelock and lewes, a well-known firm of chartered accountants of calcutta. it appears that sometime before 1946, the promoters of a company, called the chrestien mica industries limited, engaged the services of messrs. lovelock and lewes to assist them in its floatation and, as it so often happens, the engagement was ..... , even before the agreement of 12-8-1946, mr. mitchell had done some work for the promoters as a member of the firm of messrs. lovelock and lewes. the agreement states that he had 'assisted the promoters in their company promotion' and 'acted as financial adviser to the promoters.' along with his return for the assessment year 1947-48, the assessee sent a letter to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 11 2002 (HC)

Murari Ganguly and ors. Vs. Kanailal Garai and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR2003Cal105

..... was executed in favour of east india movitone (p) ltd. and though the said organisation was not a private limited company incorporated under the companies act but the promoters of the said company who actually were the lessees constituted a partnership firm and started acting in terms of the said lease document.19. according to mr. banerjee, jugal kishore used to accept rent from the ..... most part except for a couple of sections in the specific relief act, both old and new ones. it appears that a promoter is neither an agent nor trustee of the company under incorporation but certain fiduciary duties have been imposed on him both under the english companies act 1948 and the indian companies act, 1956. he is not an agent because there is no principal ..... roy road, behala, calcutta-30 and there is no indication in the alleged lease deed that murari mohan ganguly or pashupati ghosh were the promoters and/or are the promoters ,and any of the defendants acting as promoter of the company has accepted the alleged lease. it is, therefore, the fact that the alleged lease deed was executed by jugal kishore in favour of ..... the promoters of the company. that apart, company was never formed. it is well known that a private limited company has got independent legal entity. but partnership firm as formed here has no independent legal status. paragraphs 16 and 18 of the said decision relied on by mr. banerjee in this regard are quoted hereinbelow :--'there is very little guidance in the companies act, 1913 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 2007 (HC)

Rasila Bhupendra Shah and anr. and Ajit NaIn Vs. Indian Charge Chrome ...

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR2008Ori1; 104(2007)CLT665

..... is not a shareholder of either iccl or imfa. but he is a shareholder of the promoters. if the promoters wanted to make a proposal in their interest and in the interest of the companies, it was always open to the shareholders to raise their objections before the promoter company of which they are shareholders but instead of raising objections there, they approached this court ..... of the judgment is quoted below:in view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the order passed by the court under section 394 of the companies act is based upon the compromise between two or more companies. function of the court while sanctioning the compromise or arrangement is limited to oversee that the compromise or arrangement arrived at is lawful and that ..... should be implied that they have consented with the same. he has further submitted that imfa is a solvent company and thus majority of shareholders opted for amalgamation of iccl and imfa. in the interest of the shareholders of the iccl company, the promoters also acted reasonably and fairly. he has further submitted that the courts jurisdiction was supervisory in nature and was not ..... and can judiciously x-ray the same.7. that the company court has also to satisfy itself that members or class of members or creditors or class of creditors, as the case may be, were acting bona fide and in good faith and were not coercing the minority in order to promote any interest adverse to that of the latter comprising the same .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 2008 (HC)

Ramesh Chandra JaIn and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 2008CriLJ2759

..... some partners. the learned counsel for the petitioner has again submitted that according to section 62(6) of the indian companies act, the promoters cannot be held responsible for the work of the company particularly, when neither under section 17 of the act, they have been nominated nor they can be held responsible for the conduct of the business, nor they have been said to ..... expression 'promoter' means a promoter who was a party to the preparation of the prospectus or of the portion thereof containing ..... ltd. parabatpura, ajmer is a private ltd. company, which had been registered under the indian companies act. the said company was producing aerated water and cold drinks. the petitioners and shri e. n. contractor were the promoters of the aforesaid company. the article of association and the memorandum of association of the company also mentioned the present petitioners as its promoters.3. the non-petitioner no. 2, the ..... he can be said to be the in-charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business so as to make him vicariously liable. it is relevant to mention here that a promoter has been defined under section 62(6) of the companies act, 1956 which reads as under:section 62(6) - for the purposes of this section:(a) the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 15 1976 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Madras Stock Exchange Ltd. and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [1976]105ITR547(Mad)

..... reported in indian chamber of commerce v. commissioner of income-tax : [1975]101itr796(sc) . that was a case of the indian chamber of commerce, a company registered under section 26 of the indian companies act, 1913, to promote and protect the indian trade interests and other allied service operations, falling within the expression 'the advancement of any other object of general public utility' in ..... commerce is applicable to them. 2. andhra chamber of commerce is a company incorporated under the indian companies act, 1913, and was permitted under section 26 of that act to omit the word 'limited' from its name by an order of the appropriate government. the principal objects of the assessee were: (a) to promote and protect trade, commerce and industries of india, in the province ..... section 2(15) of the income-tax act, 1961. the income of the chamber was not to be paid directly or indirectly by way of profit to .....

Tag this Judgment!


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