Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

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>Shareholders entitled to fair market value for shares, appointed valuer to determine value</h1> <h3>Vasudev P. Hanji And Ors. Versus Ashok Iron Works Private Limited, Nutan Investments And Trading Private Limited, Mr. Ashok S. Humbarwadi And Mr. Jayant A. Humbarwadi</h3> The judgment concluded that the petitioners were entitled to sell their shares to the respondents at a fair market value, determined by an independent ... - Issues Involved:1. Non-declaration of dividends.2. Increase of the authorized share capital.3. Exclusion of the petitioners from the management of the Company.4. Siphoning of funds by the respondents.5. Illegal expansion program of the Company.6. Refusal to increase the salary of the first petitioner while increasing the salary of the respondents 3 & 4.7. Payment of commission to the respondents 3 & 4 before finalization of accounts.8. Amendment of articles curbing the rights of the petitioners.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Non-declaration of Dividends:The petitioners alleged that despite substantial profits, the Company never declared any dividends, which deprived minority shareholders of returns on their investments. The board of directors, controlled by the majority shareholders, rejected the proposal to declare dividends, citing the need to retain profits for expansion and working capital. The judgment noted that non-declaration of dividends, while selectively increasing remuneration for respondents 3 & 4, constituted an act of oppression against the petitioners. It emphasized that every shareholder is entitled to enjoy the profits of the company in the form of dividends, and failure to declare dividends could constitute unfair prejudice to the shareholders.2. Increase of the Authorized Share Capital:The petitioners argued that the proposal to increase the authorized share capital from Rs. 3.70 crores to Rs. 10 crores was intended to dilute their shareholding and reduce their protective rights. The judgment acknowledged this concern but did not find sufficient grounds to interfere with the decision, as it was within the collective wisdom of the board of directors.3. Exclusion of the Petitioners from the Management of the Company:The petitioners claimed they were excluded from the management and decision-making processes of the Company. The judgment noted that the removal of the eighth petitioner from directorship was part of the broader pattern of exclusion but did not specifically address this issue in detail, as the primary relief sought was the exit of the petitioners from the Company.4. Siphoning of Funds by the Respondents:The petitioners alleged that the third respondent siphoned off funds under the guise of sub-contracting charges to M/s Fluid Dynamics Private Limited, a company controlled by the Humbarwadi family. The judgment found that the petitioners failed to substantiate these allegations with concrete evidence. The transactions with M/s Fluid Dynamics Private Limited were part of the Company's business dealings for several years, and the petitioners had not raised any objections at earlier stages.5. Illegal Expansion Program of the Company:The petitioners contended that the expansion program lacked financial and technical viability and would burden the Company with excessive debts. The judgment recognized that the decision to increase the capacity of Plant-III from 18,000 MTs to 36,000 MTs was a business decision taken unanimously by the board of directors, including the first petitioner. The CLB refrained from interfering with this decision, emphasizing the importance of recognizing corporate democracy.6. Refusal to Increase the Salary of the First Petitioner while Increasing the Salary of the Respondents 3 & 4:The petitioners argued that while the remuneration of respondents 3 & 4 was substantially increased, the first petitioner's salary remained unchanged. The judgment found that the selective and exorbitant increase in remuneration for respondents 3 & 4, without extending similar benefits to the first petitioner, constituted an act of oppression. It noted that there was no link between shareholding and remuneration, but the decision was unfair to the petitioners.7. Payment of Commission to the Respondents 3 & 4 before Finalization of Accounts:The petitioners alleged that respondents 3 & 4 withdrew commission amounts before the annual accounts were approved. The judgment acknowledged this grievance but noted that the payment of commission was ratified by the board of directors at a subsequent meeting, thereby curing the irregular payment.8. Amendment of Articles Curbing the Rights of the Petitioners:The petitioners challenged several amendments to the articles of association, which they claimed were intended to usurp control of the Company and eliminate the protection provided to minority shareholders. The judgment did not delve deeply into these amendments, as the primary relief sought was the exit of the petitioners from the Company. It noted that the amendments were within the collective wisdom of the board of directors.Conclusion:The judgment concluded that the petitioners were entitled to sell their shares to the respondents at a fair market value, determined by an independent valuer. M/s Deloitte Touche was appointed to determine the fair market value of the shares as of 31.03.2005. The respondents were directed to settle the consideration for the shares within 45 days of receiving the valuation report. The Company was to bear the valuation fee. The judgment emphasized the need to bring an end to the matters complained of by the petitioners and ensure fairness in the valuation process. All interim orders were vacated, and no order as to costs was made.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found