Corporate Laws

The requirement to advertise a petition for winding up does not flow out of the statute but flows out of the Rules and since the requirement to advertise a petition for winding up is stipulated in Rr. 5 and 7 of the Companies (Winding up) Rules what is prescribed in R. 35 of the NCLT

The provisions re the exercise of rectificatory powers of a Board/Company Court under S. 38 of the Companies Act, 1913, then under S. 155 of the 1956 Act, followed by S. 111-A introduced by the 1996 Amendment to the 1956 Act, and finally, S. 59 of the 2013 Act, held, demonstrate that its essential ingredients

The first reason which has weighed with the High Court in regard to the construction of Section 212(3) is ex facie contrary to the law, as has been laid down by a two judge Bench of this Court in SFIO vs Rahul Modi. While elaborating upon the provisions of Section 212(3), this Court has held

Duomatic Principle applicable even in the Indian context – Strict adherence to a statutory requirement may be dispensed with if it is demonstrated otherwise on facts, if the same is consented by all members – Principle is only applicable in those cases wherein bona fide transactions are involved – Fraud is a clear exception. (Para

In a petition under S. 241, the true question to be asked by the Tribunal is whether removal of a Director/Executive Chairman tantamount to conduct which is oppressive or prejudicial to some members. Further, even in cases where the Tribunal finds that the removal of a Director was not in accordance with law or was

Ss. 241(2),337 and 339 clarified. Held that the powers under these sections cannot possibly be utilized in order that a person who may be the head of some other organization be roped in, and his or her assets be attachéd. This being the case, the impugned order passed by NCLAT and well as NCLT is