Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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
  • 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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
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
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 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
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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 :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        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

        <h1>Shareholder's injunction application dismissed for lack of credibility, unjustified delay, and adequate disclosure.</h1> <h3>Gopal Das Gujarati Versus Titagarh Paper Mills Co. Ltd.</h3> Gopal Das Gujarati Versus Titagarh Paper Mills Co. Ltd. - [1986] 60 COMP. CAS. 920 (CAL.) Issues Involved:1. Injunction to restrain the defendants from holding the annual general meeting and acting on the notice dated August 24, 1983.2. Legality of the appointment of Kanak Ghosh as a whole-time director without Central Government approval.3. Adequacy and legality of the explanatory statement in the notice regarding the borrowing of funds.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Injunction to Restrain the Defendants from Holding the Annual General Meeting and Acting on the Notice Dated August 24, 1983:The petitioner, a shareholder of Titagarh Paper Mills, holding 32,179 fully paid-up ordinary shares, sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from proceeding with the annual general meeting scheduled for September 30, 1983. The petitioner argued that the notice calling the meeting contained an agenda with far-reaching consequences and lacked sufficient explanatory information, thereby preventing him from exercising his voting rights effectively. The court noted that the petitioner did not attend the meeting and only sought an injunction after the meeting had taken place. The court found that the petitioner's conduct did not demonstrate a genuine interest in the company's welfare and that granting an injunction would not be justified, especially since the next annual general meeting was imminent.2. Legality of the Appointment of Kanak Ghosh as a Whole-Time Director Without Central Government Approval:The petitioner contended that the appointment of Kanak Ghosh as a whole-time director was illegal as it lacked the necessary approval from the Central Government, which is mandatory under sections 309 and 269 of the Companies Act. The petitioner argued that the appointment was disguised as ordinary business to bypass the legal requirements. However, the court was shown evidence that the Central Government had, in fact, granted approval for Kanak Ghosh's appointment as a whole-time director. Consequently, this argument lost its force, and the petitioner's counsel conceded this point, indicating that further steps might be taken to challenge the approval in the appropriate forum.3. Adequacy and Legality of the Explanatory Statement in the Notice Regarding the Borrowing of Funds:The petitioner challenged the explanatory statement accompanying the notice, particularly regarding the agenda item authorizing the board to borrow up to forty crores of rupees. The petitioner argued that the statement was misleading and lacked material facts necessary for shareholders to make an informed decision. The court examined the explanatory statement and found that it adequately explained the necessity for borrowing funds for the company's reconstruction and rehabilitation schemes. The court referred to precedents, including Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. and Shalagram Jhajharia v. National Co. Ltd., which emphasized that explanatory statements must provide material facts but need not be overly detailed. The court concluded that the explanatory statement in this case did not lack the necessary particulars and was not misleading.Conclusion:The court dismissed the application for an injunction, citing several reasons:1. The balance of convenience was not in favor of the petitioner, who held only a minimal amount of shares.2. The grounds mentioned in the petition lacked credibility.3. The explanatory statement did not lack particulars and was not misleading.4. The petitioner failed to explain why he sought an injunction only after the meeting had taken place.5. The next annual general meeting was imminent.6. The petitioner's conduct did not justify granting an equitable relief like an injunction.The court made it clear that this decision was without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the ongoing suit or any other proceedings the petitioner might pursue. The costs of the application were to be costs in the cause.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found