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
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1979 (4) TMI 108

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hi Tea Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the company") incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinfater referred to as "the Act"). The company had made investments in other companies as shareholders of those companies including a company known as Nera Terai Association Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the subsidiary company"). The company had 7,120 ordinary shares of the subsidiary company, nominal value of the said shares being Rs. 71,200. The authorised capital of the subsidiary company was Rs. 8,00,000 out of which share capital was subscribed to the extent of Rs. 7,20,000 which was fully paid up. The subsidiary company has a tea garden known as Panihatta Tea Estate in Tarai, West Bengal. Majority of the shares, i.e., 33,939 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nnual general meeting of the company regarding the aforesaid purchase and an application was made for the approval of the Central Government regarding these investments. By the impugned order dated October 8, 1968, the respondent No. 1 rejected the aforesaid application on the ground that it had no power to grant ex post facto approval under section 372(4) of the Act read with the Notification No. G.S.R. 72 dated January 1, 1966, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, department of Company Affairs and Insurance. By the impugned order, the respondent No. 1 also directed the company to dispose of those investments. Thereafter, for about two years, the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 5 did not take any action against the petit....