Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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
  • 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: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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

        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

        Civil Court Upholds Validity of Increments under Companies Act

        The Asansol Electric Supply Co. and Ors. Versus Chunilal Daw and Ors.

        The Asansol Electric Supply Co. and Ors. Versus Chunilal Daw and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved
        1. Jurisdiction of the civil court to try the suit.
        2. Interpretation of "subsequent appointment" under Section 314(1) of the Companies Act, 1956.
        3. Validity of the increments granted to the Chief Accountant without prior sanction.
        4. Validity of the special resolution passed on October 22, 1962.
        5. Reliefs sought by the plaintiffs including declarations and injunctions.

        Detailed Analysis

        Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to Try the Suit
        The primary issue was whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The defendants argued that the civil court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the internal management of the company, citing the principle in Foss v. Harbottle. However, the court clarified that the rule in Foss v. Harbottle is subject to exceptions, particularly when the acts of the majority are ultra vires or oppressive to the minority shareholders. The court concluded that the suit was maintainable because it involved allegations of ultra vires acts and oppression.

        Interpretation of "Subsequent Appointment" under Section 314(1)
        The court examined whether the increments granted to the Chief Accountant, who was the son of the Managing Director, constituted "subsequent appointments" under the Explanation to Section 314(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiffs argued that each increment required prior sanction by a special resolution. The court interpreted that "subsequent appointment" implies a break in service and a reappointment, not merely increments in pay. Therefore, the increments did not amount to subsequent appointments requiring prior sanction.

        Validity of the Increments Granted Without Prior Sanction
        The court found that the increments granted to the Chief Accountant were in line with the company's general policy of granting increments to all employees and did not require prior sanction by the general members. The increments were not considered subsequent appointments under Section 314(1).

        Validity of the Special Resolution Passed on October 22, 1962
        The plaintiffs challenged the special resolution passed on October 22, 1962, which regularized the increments granted to the Chief Accountant. The court held that since the increments did not amount to subsequent appointments, the resolution was valid and did not violate Section 314 of the Act.

        Reliefs Sought by the Plaintiffs
        The plaintiffs sought various declarations and injunctions, including:
        - Declaration that the Managing Director and his son vacated their offices.
        - Declaration that the special resolution of October 22, 1962, was invalid.
        - Perpetual injunctions restraining the Managing Director and his son from acting in their respective capacities.
        - Enquiry into the emoluments received by the Managing Director and his son and a decree for repayment to the company.

        The court dismissed these reliefs, concluding that there was no violation of Section 314 and the suit was not maintainable on these grounds. The trial court's dismissal of the suit was upheld, and the judgment of the lower appellate court was set aside.

        Conclusion
        The appeal was allowed, and each party was directed to bear its own costs. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the civil court had jurisdiction, the suit was maintainable, and the increments did not constitute subsequent appointments under Section 314(1) of the Companies Act, 1956.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found