1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Dismissal of Companies Act 1956 Application for Lack of Evidence and Bonafide Purpose</h1> The court dismissed the application seeking reliefs under section 209(4) of the Companies Act 1956 due to lack of bonafide purpose. The petitioner, ... - Issues involved: Application for reliefs u/s 209(4) of Companies Act 1956, denial of access to company's books, allegations of oppression, mismanagement, and siphoning of funds, request for investigative audit, dispute over inspection of documents, confidentiality order, lack of bonafide purpose in filing the application.Summary:1. The petitioner sought reliefs u/s 209(4) of the Companies Act 1956, including access to specific documents and original invoices. The application raised concerns of oppression, mismanagement, and siphoning of funds. 2. The application was filed solely by Petitioner No.2, Gurmeet Singh, not by Dr. Jung Bahadur Singh. Gurmeet Singh holds a minimal share in the company, and discrepancies were noted regarding the inspection of records and the conduct at Board Meetings. 3. The grievance of Petitioner No.2 was not denial of inspection but the non-provision of copies of the documents inspected. The court cited legal precedent that shareholders do not have an absolute right of access to company books and that inspection is not for collecting materials for a petition. 4. The court highlighted inconsistencies in the petitioner's claims, noting that serious allegations were not included in the petition despite claims of having evidence. The possibility of information flow from Dr. Jung Bahadur Singh to Gurmeet Singh was also raised. 5. Proceedings in the U.S.A. regarding share transfer and injunctive reliefs were mentioned, along with contentions of regular Excise Audits satisfying the Excise Department. The absence of a prayer for investigation under section 237(b) of the Companies Act was noted. 6. A confidentiality order was discussed, emphasizing the need for strict confidentiality regarding information obtained during inspection. The court raised concerns about the application's purpose not being bona fide. 7. The court ultimately dismissed the application, citing lack of bonafide purpose. The matter was scheduled for final hearing on a later date.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
