TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- 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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the writ petitioner, as a shareholder after deletion of the company from the proceedings, had locus standi to maintain the writ; (ii) whether the writ was barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata because of the earlier Supreme Court decision; (iii) whether, after repeal of the foreign exchange law and expiry of the saving period, the challenge to the approval for allotment of shares against import of second-hand medical equipment could still survive.
Issue (i): Whether the writ petitioner, as a shareholder after deletion of the company from the proceedings, had locus standi to maintain the writ.
Analysis: A writ under Article 226 is maintainable where the petitioner shows a personal legal injury. A shareholder is ordinarily distinct from the company, but where State action directly affects the company's shareholding structure and the petitioner's own stake and control position, the shareholder is not a mere stranger to the injury. In the present facts, allotment of shares to one brother on account of imported capital goods would materially alter the control and percentage holding of the other brother.
Conclusion: The petitioner had locus standi to maintain the writ.
Issue (ii): Whether the writ was barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata because of the earlier Supreme Court decision.
Analysis: Res judicata applies only to matters actually decided or necessarily covered by the earlier adjudication. The earlier Supreme Court decision dealt with oppression, board resolutions, and management issues, but did not adjudicate upon the validity of the provisional allotment of 30,55,329 shares against the imported equipment. There was therefore no direct or implied decision on the precise controversy raised in the writ.
Conclusion: The writ was not barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata.
Issue (iii): Whether, after repeal of the foreign exchange law and expiry of the saving period, the challenge to the approval for allotment of shares against import of second-hand medical equipment could still survive.
Analysis: The repealing statute preserved prior liabilities and proceedings only within the statutory saving framework. After expiry of that period, no adjudication or prosecution could be initiated for the alleged past contravention. The Court also noted the regulatory authority's stand that the goods were supported by proper documents and cleared by customs, and that the allotment was therefore treated as lawful in the prevailing legal position. Further relief was found impracticable after the passage of time and the depletion of the assets' value.
Conclusion: The challenge could not survive and the writ failed.
Final Conclusion: The petition was dismissed after rejecting the preliminary objections, because the substantive challenge to the share allotment could not be sustained in the altered legal regime and factual circumstances.
TaxTMI 
