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>Resolution of Breach of Fiduciary Duties & Company Deadlock: Share Valuation & Profit Misappropriation</h1> <h3>Kishore Kundan Sippy Versus Samrat Shipping & Transport Systems (P.) Ltd.</h3> The judgment resolves issues of breach of fiduciary duties, name usage, deadlock in company affairs, and alleged misappropriation of profits. The 2nd ... - Issues Involved:1. Breach of fiduciary duties by the directors of SSTS.2. Use of the name 'Samrat' by the 4th respondent.3. Deadlock in the affairs of SSCO and SSTS.4. Investment in NOL shares and the alleged misappropriation of profits.Detailed Analysis:1. Breach of Fiduciary Duties by the Directors of SSTS:The main dispute in the first petition revolves around the 4th respondent obtaining the agency business of Contship, which was previously held by SSTS. The Sippy Group alleges that the Puri Group, particularly the 2nd respondent, breached their fiduciary duties by diverting the Contship agency to the 4th respondent. The Puri Group incorporated the 4th respondent without the knowledge or approval of the Sippy Group and used the company's resources for its benefit. The 2nd respondent did not disclose the termination letter from Contship to the Board of SSTS, thereby preventing the Board from persuading Contship to renew the agency agreement with SSTS. The 2nd respondent's actions constitute a breach of fiduciary duties, as he failed to disclose material information and diverted a corporate opportunity for personal gain. The 4th respondent, being controlled by the Puri Group, must account for the profits derived from the Contship agency from 1-12-2001 to 31-3-2003.2. Use of the Name 'Samrat' by the 4th Respondent:The Sippy Group initially filed a suit against the Puri Group for using the name 'Samrat' for their new company. The Puri Group later changed the company's name to Seaworld Shipping & Logistics Private Ltd., leading to the withdrawal of the suit. The issue of using the name 'Samrat' is not further pursued in this judgment as the name has already been changed.3. Deadlock in the Affairs of SSCO and SSTS:There is a complete deadlock in the affairs of both SSCO and SSTS, with both groups holding 50% shares and having equal representation on the Board. The deadlock has led to a situation where no Board meetings can be conducted, and the companies' operations are at a standstill. The judgment acknowledges that deadlock situations in closely held companies with equal shareholding warrant relief to ensure the companies' survival. The solution proposed is to divide the assets of the companies between the two groups, with Sippy Group taking control of SSCO and Puri Group taking control of SSTS. This division aims to resolve the deadlock and allow each group to manage a company independently.4. Investment in NOL Shares and Alleged Misappropriation of Profits:In the second petition, the Sippy Group alleges that the 2nd respondent misappropriated profits from the sale of shares in NOL (India) Private Limited. The shares were initially shown as an investment of SSCO, but the 2nd respondent claimed ownership and sold them for Rs. 2.7 crores, refunding only Rs. 49 lakhs to the company. The judgment finds that the petitioners have not come with clean hands, as the 2nd petitioner had knowledge of and consented to the arrangement. The 2nd respondent is directed to pay a simple interest of 12% on the Rs. 49 lakhs for the period beyond four years until he refunded the amount.Conclusion:The judgment concludes with the direction to appoint an independent valuer to assess the value of shares in both SSCO and SSTS and compute the profits derived by the 4th respondent from the Contship agency. The division of assets between the Sippy and Puri Groups is ordered to resolve the deadlock, with Sippy Group taking control of SSCO and Puri Group taking control of SSTS. The 2nd respondent is also directed to pay interest on the loan amount related to the NOL shares. The petitions are disposed of with these directions, and the status quo order continues until the valuation process is completed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found