Corporate Law Judgements

The Companies (Amendment) Ordinance, 1998 (No.19 of 1998) sub-section (5) of Section 205A of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟), 1956 was amended as regards transfer of unpaid dividend account of a company to the fund establishe

This company was incorporated in 1948 with registered office at Calcutta. The authorized capital of the company was Rs. 10 lacs consisting of 4000 6% tax free redeemable cumulative preference shares of Rs. 100/-each and 6000 ordinary shares of Rs. 1

These two applications were heard on 1.3.2001. The learned Sr.Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Mitra, submitted as follows: At the time when the petition was heard, there was no document available with the petitioners to support their claim that t

The facts of the instant case, in brief, are that the petitioner incorporated a company in the year 1995 under the name and style of Maha Bhairav Plantation Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at 308, Vinay Place, 11, Ashoka Marg, Lucknow-226001.

The brief facts are that the Respondent/ Complainant i.e. Registrar of Companies (ROC) received a complaint regarding the affairs of M/s. Tianjin Tianshi India Pvt. Ltd. (the Company) being irregular and illegal. A letter dated 24.02.2004 was issued

Heard Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned senior counsel, appearing with Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned advocate for the applicant, Ms. Yajnik, learned advocate for the respondent No.1-OL and Mr. Rutvij Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent No.2. 2. From

The appellants, one late Harshad S. Mehta, their other family members and the corporate entities belonging to the family members had purchased more than 90 lakh shares in Apollo. Except for the holding of two family members, the entire holding came

These appeals arise from the order dated 30.3.2004 of the Madras High Court in WP No. 2198/2003 filed by the President of Madras Bar Association (MBA for short) challenging the constitutional validity of Chapters 1B and 1C of the Companies Act, 1956(

The Company Law Board, by its order dated April 16,2009, inter alia, admitted a composite petition filed by the respondents under sections 111A, 235(2), 250(3), 397 and 398 read with sections 402, 403 and 408 of the Companies

Brief Facts: The petitioner company sought the sanction of the court to a scheme of amalgamation by which a 75% subsidiary was to be merged with it. The scheme was approved by the majority of the equity share holders, all of the secured creditors and