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

        Petition Dismissed for Delay & Forum Shopping

        Dilip Kumar Ari & Anr. Versus M/s Matrikalyan Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

        Dilip Kumar Ari & Anr. Versus M/s Matrikalyan Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - Tmi Issues Involved:

        1. Wrongful increase of shareholding by Respondent No. 2.
        2. Illegal appointment of Respondent No. 3 as director.
        3. Wrongful appointment of Company Secretary and Chartered Accountant.
        4. Allegations of oppression and mismanagement.
        5. Delay and laches in filing the petition.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Wrongful Increase of Shareholding by Respondent No. 2:

        The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 2 wrongfully increased his shareholding from 33.33% to 58.43% on or before 31.07.2008 without proper notice or consent. The petitioner claimed that the issuance of 6,700 equity shares to Respondent No. 2 was done behind their back, aiming to prejudice their rights and interests. The respondent, however, contended that the increase in shareholding was agreed upon in a board meeting as part of an amicable settlement, which the petitioners were aware of.

        2. Illegal Appointment of Respondent No. 3 as Director:

        The petitioner argued that the appointment of Respondent No. 3 on 28.08.2008 was illegal, null, and void due to the lack of notice and quorum for the board meeting. They claimed that the appointment was a ploy by Respondent No. 2 to usurp control of the company. The respondent countered that the appointment was part of a mutual agreement to relieve the petitioners of their duties, and that the petitioners had consented to this arrangement.

        3. Wrongful Appointment of Company Secretary and Chartered Accountant:

        The petitioners alleged that Respondent No. 4, 5, and 6 were wrongfully appointed as Company Secretary and Chartered Accountant without proper resolution or consent. The respondents denied these allegations, asserting that all appointments were made following due process and with the necessary approvals.

        4. Allegations of Oppression and Mismanagement:

        The petitioners accused Respondent No. 2 of various acts of oppression and mismanagement, including illegal occupation of company property, siphoning off company funds, and manipulating company records. They claimed that Respondent No. 2 forcefully took control of the nursing home, misappropriated funds, and engaged in violent acts against the petitioners. The respondents refuted these claims, stating that the nursing home’s operations were conducted transparently and that any disputes were settled amicably.

        5. Delay and Laches in Filing the Petition:

        The tribunal highlighted the significant delay and laches in filing the petition. The disputes arose in 2005, but the petition was filed only in 2014. The tribunal noted that the petitioners had previously sought relief in civil court and the High Court, which had appointed Respondent No. 2 as the receiver of the nursing home. The tribunal emphasized the principle that courts aid those who are vigilant and do not sleep on their rights. The tribunal cited several judgments, including *State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai* and *MTNL v. State of Maharashtra*, to underscore that unreasonable delay in presenting claims can lead to their rejection.

        The tribunal concluded that the petition was not maintainable due to the delay and laches, and it was also devoid of merit. The tribunal dismissed the petition, noting that it appeared to be an abuse of the court process aimed at exerting pressure for collateral purposes.

        Conclusion:

        The petition was dismissed on grounds of delay and laches, and lack of merit. The tribunal found that the petitioners had engaged in forum shopping and had not acted promptly to address their grievances. The tribunal upheld the principle that courts should not aid those who delay in asserting their rights and that the petition was an abuse of process.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found