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>Tribunal Upholds Winding-Up Order for Mismanagement and Oppression in Company Dispute</h1> <h3>Mr. Soumitra Banerjee, Mrs. Shampa Banerjee Versus Mr. Asher Ebrahim Melamed, Touranto Company (India) Private Limited</h3> Mr. Soumitra Banerjee, Mrs. Shampa Banerjee Versus Mr. Asher Ebrahim Melamed, Touranto Company (India) Private Limited - TMI Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to order winding-up under Section 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013.2. Delay and laches in the Company Petition.3. Allegations of oppression and mismanagement against one of the shareholders.4. Dispute regarding the management of the company and financial transactions between the shareholders.5. Allegations of siphoning off funds and cheating by one of the shareholders.6. Dispute over the distribution of profits and business decisions.7. Lack of proper maintenance of statutory books of accounts and records by the shareholders.8. Conclusion of oppression and mismanagement leading to the winding-up order.Analysis:1. The Tribunal's jurisdiction to order winding-up under Section 241-242 of the Companies Act, 2013 was challenged by the Appellants, arguing that the cause of action arose between 2000-2008, making the Company Petition subject to dismissal due to delay and laches. However, the Tribunal found that the dispute had reached a deadlock, justifying the winding-up order based on oppression and mismanagement.2. The Appellants contended that the Respondent failed to establish a case of oppression against him, and thus, no relief should have been granted. On merit, they argued that they had been managing the company's affairs and bearing expenses, while the Respondent had limited involvement. The Tribunal noted the financial contributions and business arrangements between the parties.3. Allegations of siphoning off funds and cheating were raised against the Respondent, including overinvoicing and charging excessive commissions beyond the agreed percentage. The Appellants highlighted instances of direct communication with suppliers, bypassing the company, leading to financial discrepancies and unjust enrichment of the Respondent.4. Disputes over profit distribution, business decisions, and sudden cessation of orders by the Respondent were discussed. The Appellants claimed that the Respondent's actions deprived the company of business opportunities, leading to financial losses and the need to lease out office premises.5. The Tribunal observed the lack of proper maintenance of statutory books and records, noting discrepancies in financial accounts and the absence of meeting registers. This lack of compliance was attributed to the Appellants, who were responsible for maintaining records during their directorship.6. Based on the circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that oppression and mismanagement were evident, justifying the winding-up order to resolve the deadlock and financial issues within the company. The decision was upheld, dismissing the appeal without costs.This detailed analysis covers the key issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the arguments presented by the parties and the Tribunal's reasoning behind the final decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
