Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Companies Law

        1983 (7) TMI 253 - HC - Companies Law

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Court quashes complaint due to vague allegations, lack of evidence. Misuse of legal processes highlighted. The court quashed the complaint against the petitioners as it found the allegations vague and lacking specific details. The court emphasized that ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Court quashes complaint due to vague allegations, lack of evidence. Misuse of legal processes highlighted.

                          The court quashed the complaint against the petitioners as it found the allegations vague and lacking specific details. The court emphasized that proceeding with the case would be futile and noted the absence of evidence to establish any offence. It highlighted the potential for misuse of legal processes and concluded that the complaint did not disclose any violation of the Companies Act. Consequently, the court quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 251 of 1979.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Alleged contravention of Section 108A of the Companies Act.
                          2. Alleged contravention of Section 187C(2) of the Companies Act.
                          3. Alleged contravention of Section 308 of the Companies Act.
                          4. Validity of the complaint and sufficiency of evidence.

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Alleged Contravention of Section 108A of the Companies Act:

                          The complaint alleges that the petitioners acquired over 32,000 shares benami, thereby exceeding the 25% limit of the paid-up capital of Radhakrishna Mills Ltd., without obtaining the necessary approval from the Company Law Board as mandated by Section 108A. The court noted that the complaint was vague and lacked specific details on the number of shares acquired by each petitioner and the identities of the benami shareholders. The definition of "group" under the Companies Act was also discussed, emphasizing that the Company Law Board must determine whether the petitioners constitute a group. The court found no such determination in the complaint and concluded that the accusation was too uncertain to proceed.

                          2. Alleged Contravention of Section 187C(2) of the Companies Act:

                          Section 187C(2) requires a person holding beneficial interest in shares to declare this to the company. The petitioners were accused of failing to make such declarations. The court highlighted that both the benami shareholder and the beneficiary must declare their interests to the company and that failure to do so attracts severe penalties. The court questioned the likelihood of witnesses incriminating themselves by admitting to holding benami shares without having made the necessary declarations, which would expose them to prosecution under Section 187C(5). The court found the evidence insufficient to establish a prima facie case of contravention.

                          3. Alleged Contravention of Section 308 of the Companies Act:

                          Section 308 mandates directors to notify the company of their shareholdings. The petitioners were accused of failing to comply with this requirement. The court linked this issue closely with Section 187C, noting that without clear evidence of beneficial ownership, it would be inappropriate to proceed with charges under Section 308. The court emphasized the need for "irreproachable and incontrovertible materials" to justify taking cognizance of the case.

                          4. Validity of the Complaint and Sufficiency of Evidence:

                          The petitioners argued that the complaint was based on vague and indefinite averments, mere surmises, and assumptions. They contended that even if the witnesses supported the complaint, their testimony would not establish any offence. The court agreed, noting that the complaint lacked specific allegations and concrete evidence. The court also considered the possibility of the complaint being a counter-blast to another complaint filed by the petitioners against other directors. The court concluded that allowing the trial to proceed would open the floodgates for persecution against directors and companies, stifling corporate business and industrial activity.

                          Conclusion:

                          The court found that the complaint did not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioners. The allegations were vague, indefinite, and lacked specific details. The court emphasized that the proceedings would only prove to be an exercise in futility and quashed the complaint. The court also noted that if there had been a deliberate violation of the Act, the Company Law Board would have taken action. Consequently, the proceedings in C.C. No. 251 of 1979 were quashed.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found