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>Board dismisses application under Companies Act for general meeting, favors applicant's right to convene.</h1> <h3>B. Mohandas Versus A.K.M.N. Cylinders (P.) Ltd.</h3> The Board dismissed the application under Section 186 of the Companies Act, 1956, which sought directions for calling a general meeting. The dispute over ... - Issues:1. Application under Section 186 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking directions for calling a general meeting.2. Dispute regarding shareholding and requisition of an extraordinary general meeting.3. Validity of requisitions, compliance with statutory provisions, and practicality of calling a meeting.4. Interpretation of Section 186 requirements and consideration of shareholder rights.Analysis:Issue 1:The application was filed under Section 186 of the Companies Act, 1956, requesting directions for calling a general meeting to transact specific business, including the retirement and re-election of directors and the production of financial documents for inspection.Issue 2:The dispute arose from the applicant's shareholding in the company and the requisition of an extraordinary general meeting. The applicant, holding a significant number of shares, sought to convene a meeting but faced challenges from the company regarding the validity of the requisitions and the applicant's right to call a meeting.Issue 3:The company argued that the requisitions for the extraordinary general meeting were invalid and did not comply with statutory provisions. The company contended that the applicant had agreed to sell shares, making the requisition impracticable. However, the Board found that the applicant had the right to convene a meeting under Section 169 and, therefore, dismissed the application.Issue 4:The Board analyzed the requirements of Section 186, emphasizing that the application must meet the conditions of shareholder entitlement and impracticability of calling a meeting. It was concluded that since the applicant could have convened a meeting under Section 169, the application under Section 186 was deemed unnecessary and dismissed.In summary, the judgment addressed the legal complexities surrounding the application under Section 186 of the Companies Act, emphasizing the importance of statutory compliance, shareholder rights, and the practicality of calling a meeting. The decision highlighted the applicant's ability to convene a meeting under Section 169, leading to the dismissal of the application under Section 186.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
