Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: company law board clb chennai Page 1 of about 5 results (0.140 seconds)

Jan 23 2009 (TRI)

Beml Ltd. Vs. Beml Midwest Ltd.

Court : Company Law Board CLB Chennai

1. The petitioner has invoked the equitable jurisdiction of the Company Law Board under sections 397, 398, 402, 403 and 406 of the Companies Act, 1956 (“the Act”) with a view to bringing to an end the matters complained of in the affairs of M/s. BEML MIDWEST LIMITED (“the Company”) and claiming against the respondents 3 to 5 and 7, the following reliefs :— (a) to declare that the acts of the respondents 3 to 5 are prejudicial to the interest of the Company and are oppressive against the petitioner and public at large; (b) to declare that the respondents 3 to 5 have failed in their fiduciary duties towards the Company and direct the respondents 2 to 5 to reimburse a sum of Rs. 11 crore to Company along with interest at the rate of 24 per cent from 1-4-2008 up to date of repayment; (c) to appoint an investigator to enquire into misfeasance and misdemeanours committed by the respondents 3 to 5; (d) to appoint a committee of management in supersession of the B...

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 22 2008 (TRI)

Vijayalakshmi Insecticides and Pesticides (P.) Ltd., in Re

Court : Company Law Board CLB Chennai

1. The petitioner Company has presented this petition under section 17 of the Companies Act, 1956 (‘the Act’) to this Bench for confirmation of the alteration to the Situation Clause of the Memorandum of Association of the Company as approved by the Special Resolution passed in accordance with section 189 of the Act at its Extraordinary General Meeting held on 7-6-2008. 2. The petitioner Company has been incorporated as a private Company limited by shares in the State of andhra Pradesh in the year 1974 to take over and exploit the licence obtained by Sri Eatla Satyanarayana Raju and Kosuri Janakirama Raju for manufacture of pesticides, insecticides and formulations and cattle feed respectively and set up factories, plants for manufacture of the above and allied products and to take up manufacture of organic and inorganic chemicals and agro based processing industries and to act as Agents, Dealers, Distributors of these products etc. The petitioner Company is proposed to exp...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 17 2008 (TRI)

P.V. Premnath Vs. Tvs Motor Co. Ltd.

Court : Company Law Board CLB Chennai

1. This company petition has been filed under section 111(4)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 (“the Act”) seeking directions against M/s. TVS Motor Company Limited (“the Company”) to (i) rectify the register of members by incorporating the name of the petitioner in respect of 17,000 shares of Re. 1 each of the Company; and (ii) issue duplicate share certificates in the name of the petitioners in respect of the impugned shares, in support of which Shri R. Murari, learned Counsel, submitted as under: “The petitioner has invoked the provisions of section 111(4)(b) for rectification of the register of members of the first respondent Company, being a public company, which will not however affect the maintainability of the company petition. The courts have held that a petition filed under section 111 in respect of a public company may be treated as filed under section 111A. The Supreme Court held that Courts have to pass final orders in order to do complete justice...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 23 2008 (TRI)

T. Balan Vs. Unicentre Agencies and Engg. (P.) Ltd.

Court : Company Law Board CLB Chennai

1. The petitioners collectively holding 50 per cent of the issued and paid up capital of M/s. Unicentre Agencies and Engineering Private Limited (“the Company”) aggrieved on account of certain acts of oppression and mis-management in the affairs of the Company, at the hands of the respondents 2 to 5, have invoked the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board under sections 397, 398 and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 (“the Act”), claiming the following reliefs: (a) to pass appropriate orders for the management, regulation and conduct of the affairs of the Company; (b) to supersede the present Board of directors of the Company and appoint an administrator to manage, regulate and conduct the affairs of the Company. (c) to surcharge the respondents 2 to 5 in accordance with Schedule XI of the Act on account of misappropriation and misapplication of the Company’s funds; and (d) to restore in favour of the Company the immovable properties located at Gummidipundi (&#...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 2008 (TRI)

Asia Stone S.L. Vs. B. and G. Impex (P.) Ltd.

Court : Company Law Board CLB Chennai

1. The present company application is filed under section 186(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 (“the Act”) before this Bench seeking various reliefs as prayed in para 8 of the application. 2. Shri A. Narayanan, learned Counsel for the applicant Company which is registered under the Laws of Spain, submitted that M/s. B.G. Impex Private Limited, the first Respondent Company herein (“the Company”) has been incorporated as a Private Company, limited by shares on 14-7-2006 in the State of Karnataka with authorised share capital of Rs. 10 lakhs divided into 1,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. Subsequently, at the Extraordinary General Meeting held on 21-12-2006 the Authorised capital was enhanced to Rs. 2.97 crores divided into 29,70,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The applicant company is a shareholder and holds 99.67 per cent of the paid up capital of the company and also having an investment of more than Rs. 2.95 crores. He further submitted that the first board ...

Tag this Judgment!


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