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
  • 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

        -

        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

        <h1>Company Law Tribunal Allows Government Directors to Take Control - Upheld Decision for Public Interest Protection</h1> <h3>Shri C.P. Yogshwara, Shri P. Mahadevaiah, Shri C.P. Gangadhreshwara, Shri Ramesh H.P. Versus Union of India, Registrar of Companies Karnataka Kendriya Sadan, M/s Megacity Bangalore Developers and Builders Limited</h3> Shri C.P. Yogshwara, Shri P. Mahadevaiah, Shri C.P. Gangadhreshwara, Shri Ramesh H.P. Versus Union of India, Registrar of Companies Karnataka Kendriya ... Issues:- Relief sought under Section 388B of the Companies Act, 1956 for appointment of Government Nominated Directors and control of company affairs.- Challenge to Tribunal's decision based on misdirection in granting relief under Section 388B.- Interpretation of Section 465 of the Companies Act, 2013 and its impact on granting relief under repealed provisions.- Allegations of financial fraud, mismanagement, and illegal practices by the company's management.- Empowerment of Central Government under Sections 241(2) and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 to file applications and make orders in cases prejudicial to public interest.- Tribunal's authority to replace existing management with government-nominated directors under Sections 241 & 242 of the Companies Act, 2013.The judgment pertains to a petition under Sections 401/397/398 read with Section 408 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking relief under Section 388B for the appointment of Government Nominated Directors and control of a company's affairs. The National Company Law Tribunal found merit in the Union of India's petition, deeming it necessary to interfere in the company's affairs to protect stakeholders and ensure statutory compliance. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the removal of existing directors and the appointment of new directors nominated by the Union of India. The shareholders of the company challenged this decision, arguing that the Tribunal erred in granting relief under Section 388B of the repealed Companies Act, 1956.The appellants contended that without a corresponding provision in the Companies Act, 2013, relief under Section 388B could not be granted. They relied on Section 465 of the Companies Act, 2013, and the General Clauses Act, 1897, to argue that the Tribunal lacked the authority to grant relief under a repealed provision. Additionally, they criticized the Tribunal for not providing reasons for deeming the appellants unfit for their roles and for accepting reports without shareholder complaints. The appellants also highlighted pending legal proceedings that were allegedly ignored by the Tribunal.The investigation revealed serious financial fraud, mismanagement, and illegal practices by the company's management, including forging documents, misrepresenting projects, and conducting business prejudicial to public interest. The Serious Fraud Investigation Office's report highlighted various allegations, such as non-filing of statutory returns, land purchases, and fraudulent practices. The Tribunal found that the company's affairs were conducted against the public interest and stakeholders under the existing management.The judgment emphasized the empowerment of the Central Government under Sections 241(2) and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, to file applications and make orders in cases prejudicial to public interest. It clarified that even in the absence of Section 388B of the Companies Act, 1956, the Tribunal could pass similar orders under Sections 241 & 242 of the Companies Act, 2013. Given the findings of prejudicial conduct by the company's management, the Tribunal was authorized to replace the existing management with government-nominated directors to protect public interest.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing no interference was warranted based on the findings of prejudicial conduct and the authority vested in the Central Government and the Tribunal under the Companies Act, 2013. The judgment underscores the importance of protecting public interest and stakeholders in cases of mismanagement and illegal practices within companies.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found