Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Sorted by: recent Court: company law board clb Year: 1999 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.038 seconds)

Jun 18 1999 (TRI)

Karedla Suryanarayana and ors. Vs. Ramadas Motor Transport Limited

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : Jun-18-1999

Reported in : (1999)98CompCas518

..... to close the parcel offices was alleged to have been ratified and that the proceedings of the meeting actually held on march 3, 1993, in which the petitioner questioned the rationale of closure of parcel offices have not been recorded in the minutes book.9. sri raghavan : opening and closing of parcel offices was based on volume of traffic generated. totally ..... not provide and to avoid recording his dissent, the minutes have been fabricated to show that there was a meeting only on february 27, 1993.he has also questioned the rationale of discussing the closure of the offices if the same had been ratified in the meeting on september 29, 1992. we find from the minutes of the board meeting held .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 12 1999 (TRI)

V.K. Gupta and ors. Vs. Auto Lamps Ltd. and ors.

Court : Company Law Board CLB

Decided on : Feb-12-1999

Reported in : (1999)96CompCas555

1. in these two appeals filed under section 111 of the companies act, 1956, in the matter of auto lamps limited (the company), the bench had passed an order on june 13, 1995, directing the company to register the shares impugned in these two appeals within 30 days from the date of receipt of that order in the names of the petitioners. this order was taken on appeal to the delhi high court which, while setting aside the order of the company law board on the ground that the original appeals before the company law board were time barred, remanded the case to the company law board to decide the question as to whether the delay in filing the appeals by the appellants could be condoned and the high court also gave the liberty to the appellants to file an application for condonation of the delay. accordingly, the appellants filed an application for condonation of the delay under section 5 of the limitation act, 1963.2. before considering the arguments of counsel on the application, it is essential to narrate the facts of these appeals. the appellants purchased 3,050 shares of the company from one shri r. raghuraman on march 20, 1980, and 100 shares from one shri aggarwal on april 16, 1990. these shares were lodged along with the instruments of transfer with the company. shri vimal gupta, the appellant herein, was at that time the joint managing director of the company. in a board meeting held on june 30, 1990, which was attended by shri vimal gupta, the board passed a resolution .....

Tag this Judgment!


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