Similar Posts

(Firm) Pars Ram-Brij Kishore v. Jagraon Trading Syndicate, Ltd.

ByVivek Kumar Verma

(Firm) Pars Ram-Brij Kishore v. Jagraon Trading Syndicate, Ltd. FACTS  A petition was pub in by the liquidator of the Jagraon Trading Syndicate, Ltd., under Sections 187, 156 and 225, Companies Act, for a payment order against Rai Sahib L. Pars Ram Brij Kishore as a contributory of the Company for certain sum and interest…

In Re: Indusind Bank Ltd.

ByVivek Kumar Verma

CITATION: (2004) 4 CompLJ 394 Bom DECIDED: May 6, 2004 BEFORE: Bombay High Court FACTS A company petition was filed by the petitioner IndusInd Bank Limited for sanction of Scheme of Arrangement between Ashok Leyland Finance Limited (‘transferor company’) and IndusInd Bank Limited (‘transferee company’) and their respective members and creditors. The Regional Director’s main objection was that…

Do Directors Owe Fiduciary Duty to Shareholders?

Do Directors Owe Fiduciary Duty to Shareholders?

ByVivek Kumar Verma

Scope and Definition of ‘fiduciary’, “fiduciary capacity” and “fiduciary relationship” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sri Marcel Martins vs. M. Printer and Ors.[1] defined the term ‘fiduciary’ as- “The word ‘fiduciary’, as a noun, means one who holds a thing in trust for another, a trustee, a person holding the character of a trustee, or…

Miheer H. Mafatlal Vs. Mafatlal Industries Ltd.

ByVivek Kumar Verma

The scope of Company Court to sanction scheme of amalgamation is limited and therefore Court can intervene in matter only when it is not just and fair or prejudicial to the interest of share holders. Court can only go through scheme and examine whether it has complied requirements under Section 391 (2) and was passed requisite majority or not. Individual personal interest of minority share holders is of no concern unless it is affecting class interest of such equity shareholders.

Indo Rolhard Industries Ltd. Vs. M.K. Mahajan & Anr.

ByVivek Kumar Verma

[2013] 178 CompCas 282 (Delhi) FACTS: A petition was filed by two shareholders for winding up of the appellant-company under section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956. The company court by the impugned order admitted the petition, directed the company to be wound up and, ordered the citation to be published in the “Statesman” (English)…

One Comment

Leave a Reply