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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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 :

        📋
        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

        <h1>Court allows appeals in winding up case, directs companies to continue with appellant as director</h1> <h3>Anisha K. Shah Versus Fostenex (P.) Ltd.</h3> The court allowed the appeals in the case involving the winding up of three private limited companies. It directed the companies to continue operating ... Winding up - Company when deemed unable to pay its debts Issues Involved:1. Winding up of three private limited companies.2. Appointment of a provisional liquidator.3. Transfer of shares and management rights.4. Allegations of oppression and denial of benefits.5. Just and equitable grounds for winding up.6. Non-declaration of dividends and financial mismanagement.7. Quasi-partnership and equitable considerations.Detailed Analysis:1. Winding Up of Three Private Limited Companies:The appellant filed petitions under sections 433(e) and (f), 434(1)(a), and 439(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, for the winding up of Fostenex Private Limited, Toolex Private Limited, and Brightenex Private Limited. The appellant argued that she had received no assets as a share in the companies and sought the appointment of a provisional liquidator to take charge of the companies' affairs.2. Appointment of a Provisional Liquidator:The trial court dismissed the petition for the appointment of a provisional liquidator. The appellant moved an interim petition for such an appointment during the appeal. The respondents opposed this, asserting that the companies had done nothing to deny the appellant her legal dues, which were limited to holding shares.3. Transfer of Shares and Management Rights:The respondents admitted that the shares held by the appellant's deceased husband were transferred to her. However, they denied her the right to be a director or managing director, asserting she was only entitled to the shares and associated benefits, not a management role.4. Allegations of Oppression and Denial of Benefits:The appellant claimed that her father-in-law and brother-in-law denied her legitimate shares, a management position, and the benefits of her husband's shares. She alleged that the companies had not declared any dividends and had not paid her any money, while the respondents drew substantial salaries and perquisites.5. Just and Equitable Grounds for Winding Up:The appellant argued that the respondents' actions justified a winding up order under the 'just and equitable' clause of section 433(f) of the Companies Act. The court noted that this clause is a remedy of last resort, invoked when other remedies are not sufficient to protect the general interests of the companies.6. Non-Declaration of Dividends and Financial Mismanagement:The court expressed concern over the non-declaration of dividends despite the companies being profitable. This adversely affected the appellant while benefiting the respondents, who drew substantial emoluments. The court referenced case law indicating that failure to declare dividends and oppression of minority shareholders could justify a winding up order.7. Quasi-Partnership and Equitable Considerations:The court considered whether the companies were essentially partnerships in the guise of private limited companies. It noted that in cases of quasi-partnerships, equitable considerations could justify a winding up order. The court found sufficient evidence of a personal relationship involving mutual confidence between the parties and a breach of that confidence by the respondents.Conclusion:The court directed that the companies continue functioning with the appellant being appointed as a director in all three companies, receiving the same emoluments her husband would have received. Specific orders included:1. Respondents to furnish details of the board of directors and withdrawals made by them.2. Deposit amounts equivalent to what the appellant's husband would have drawn.3. The appellant to withdraw half of the deposited amount each month without security.4. The order to prevail over any subordinate court orders.The appeals were allowed to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found