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.
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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :
        Companies Law

        1999 (12) TMI 874 - Board - Companies Law

        📋
        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

        Court Invalidates Director Appointments in Family Business Dispute The first petitioner was found not disqualified as a director under Section 274(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, and was allowed to continue as the managing ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Court Invalidates Director Appointments in Family Business Dispute

                          The first petitioner was found not disqualified as a director under Section 274(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, and was allowed to continue as the managing director. The appointment of two employee directors and the second respondent as managing director during the extraordinary general meeting was deemed oppressive due to the family nature of the company. The court invalidated these appointments and provided options for resolving the deadlock in the board, including distribution of shares in a subsidiary or selling shares based on valuation. The case was disposed of with no costs, granting liberty to both parties to apply.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Disqualification of the first petitioner as a director under Section 274(b) of the Companies Act, 1956.
                          2. Legality of the extraordinary general meeting held on April 21, 1998, and the resolutions passed therein, including the appointment of two employee directors and the second respondent as managing director.

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Disqualification of the First Petitioner as a Director:
                          The second respondent informed the first petitioner that he had ceased to be a director/managing director by virtue of Section 274(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, on the grounds of being declared an undischarged insolvent by the High Court of Madras. However, it was revealed that the insolvency petition against the first petitioner had been dismissed by the High Court, a fact known to the respondent. The judgment noted that there was no argument from the respondents on this issue, and a certificate from an advocate confirmed the dismissal of the insolvency petition. Consequently, the first petitioner did not attract the provisions of Section 274(b) and, as per the company's articles, would continue to function as the managing director for life.

                          2. Legality of the Extraordinary General Meeting and Resolutions Passed:
                          The extraordinary general meeting held on April 21, 1998, was convened to transact various businesses, including appointing the second respondent as managing director and two employees as directors. The petitioners argued that the meeting was convened in violation of the Companies Act and that the induction of outsiders into a family company without the consent of all family shareholders constituted an act of oppression. The respondents countered that proper notices were issued, and any irregularities could be rectified in subsequent meetings.

                          The judgment emphasized that in a Section 397/398 petition, the focus is on whether the actions constitute oppression rather than their legality. Given the family nature of the company and the parity in the board with two directors from each group, any disturbance resulting in the marginalization of one group was deemed an act of oppression. The appointment of two additional directors was thus considered oppressive. Additionally, the appointment of the second respondent as managing director was invalidated since the first petitioner was not disqualified and the company did not carry on any business.

                          Additional Considerations:
                          The judgment acknowledged the potential for deadlock in the board due to equal representation from both groups. To protect the company's interests, especially concerning its subsidiary, Coromandel Indag Products India Limited, options were provided to the petitioners. They could either opt for the distribution/transfer of the company's 70% shares in the subsidiary to the individual petitioners at 14% each or choose to sell their shares to the respondents/company based on an independent valuation. These options were to be exercised within 30 days, and once exercised, the directions invalidating the resolutions from the extraordinary general meeting would lapse.

                          Conclusion:
                          The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and liberty to apply was given to both parties. The judgment provided a balanced resolution aimed at protecting the interests of the company and its subsidiary while addressing the acts of oppression identified in the petition.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found