TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court clarifies shareholder approval for collaboration, sets aside High Court order</h1> <h3>Rajinder Kumar Malhotra Versus Company Law Board</h3> The Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal from a High Court order in a case involving allegations of minority shareholder oppression due to a ... Oppression and mismanagement - Held that:- In view of this clarification, the respondents may find no need to proceed with the writ petition before the Calcutta High Court. That petition is withdrawn to this Court and is disposed of accordingly. A formal order in this behalf shall be made by the High Court. Issues:1. Special leave to appeal from the High Court order regarding a petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. Allegations of oppression of minority shareholders due to collaboration arrangement with another company.3. Interlocutory order by Company Law Board (CLB) restraining company actions.4. High Court's interlocutory order staying CLB's directions.5. Interpretation of CLB's order regarding collaboration steps.6. Necessity and implications of setting aside High Court's order.7. Effect of CLB's directions on pending proceedings.8. Clarification on the scope of CLB's order and withdrawal of the writ petition.Analysis:The Supreme Court heard a case where petitioners, claiming to be minority shareholders, sought special leave to appeal from a High Court order related to a petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioners alleged oppression of minority due to an illegal collaboration arrangement with another company. The Company Law Board (CLB) had issued an interlocutory order restraining the company from certain actions, which the High Court partially stayed. The CLB's order required approval from shareholders for collaboration steps and gave specific directions regarding notice and disclosure. The respondents challenged the interlocutory order before the High Court, mainly disputing the interpretation of the order concerning collaboration steps.The Supreme Court addressed the interpretation of the CLB's order, emphasizing that the directions did not prevent the company from taking preparatory steps for collaboration. The Court found the High Court's order unnecessary, as the CLB's directions did not hinder preliminary actions before shareholder approval for collaboration steps. The Court clarified that the CLB's order did not nullify any existing orders from other proceedings and did not prevent preparatory steps as long as shares were not issued to the collaborator without shareholder approval. The Court noted that the respondents might not need to pursue the writ petition before the High Court in light of this clarification.Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and disposed of the special leave petition accordingly. The Court vacated the earlier stay order and directed the withdrawal of the writ petition before the High Court. The judgment clarified the scope of the CLB's order, emphasizing that it did not impede preparatory steps for collaboration and only required shareholder approval for issuing shares to the collaborator.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
