before the company law board - Company Law Board Mumbai Bench

More documents

Recommendations

Info

14relied upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in (1) AIR 1976SC 807 In the matter of Kale & Ors Vs. Dy.Director ofConsolidation & Ors.CP 15/2008P ExportsIt is held “Family arrangements aregoverned by principles which are not applicable to dealings betweenstrangers. The Court, when deciding the rights of parties underfamily arrangements or claims to upset such arrangements, considerswhat in the broadest view of the matter is most for the interest offamilies and has regard to considerations which in dealing withtransactions between persons not members of the same family, wouldnot be taken into account. Matters which would be fatal to thevalidity of similar transactions between strangers are not objectionsto the binding effect of family arrangements.” (2) AIR 1971 SC 1337In the matter of Shambhu Prasad Singh Vs. Phool Kumari & Ors.Para 9. (3) AIR 1966 SC 1836 In the matter of Maturi Pullaiah &Anr. Vs. M.Narasimham & Ors. Para 17. (4) AIR 2000 SC 2488 Inthe matter of Harishankar Singhania & Ors. Vs. GaurHarisinghania & Ors. Para 43, 44. (5) (2004) 9 SCC 204 In thematter of M.S.Madhusoodhanan & Anr. Vs. Kerala KaumudiPvt.Ltd. & Ors. Para 137, 139.He further contended that thepetitioners sought declarations and no relief can be granted in view ofSec.34 of Specific Relief Act and relied upon the following decisions:1) Vol.XIII MADRAS SERIES Page 75 In the matter ofKombi Vs Aundi & Ors. 2) AIR 2004 Jharkhand 92 In the matter
15of Chhabi Dushadh & Anr. Vs. Bhuneshwar Pandey & Anr. Para16. The Learned Counsel further submitted that the petitionerobtained ex-parte orders from this Bench which he is not entitled toand relied upon the decisions: (1) (1994) 1 SCC Page 1 In the matterof S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath & Ors. Para 5.(2) (2006) 7 SCC 416 In the matter of Hamza Haji Vs. State ofKerala and Anr. Para 24. (3) (2007) 4 SCC 221 In the matter ofA.V.Papayya Sastry & Ors. vs. Government of A.P. & Ors. Para21, 29.9. While rejoining to the submissions of the respondents, theLearned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that MOU cannot bepart of Corporate Governance and not binding on shareholders orCompany and relied upon the following decisions. (1) AIR 1992 SC453 In the matter of V.B. Rangaraj Vs. V.B.Gopalakrishnan. Para7 and 9. (2) AIR 1955 SC 74 In the matter of Mrs.Bacha F. GuzdarVs. Commissioner of Income Tax. (3) 2000 Comp.Cases Vol 100page 19 (Bombay High Court) In the matter of Rolta India Limited& Anr. Vs. Venire Industries Limited & Ors. Page 32. (4) 2003Comp.Cases Vol.113 Page 298 CLB In the matter of RadheshyamTulsian & Ors Vs. Panchmukhy Investments Limited. It is toshow “The Company Law Board will not consider privateagreements between parties.CP 15/2008P ExportsMemorandum of Understandingbetween shareholding groups will not be considered.” (5) (2010) 7
Page 5 and 6: 53. It is further submitted that th
Page 7 and 8: 74. Respondents have filed detailed
Page 9 and 10: 9to and have to be formally transfe
Page 11 and 12: 11remaining part of the same. The B
Page 13: 13their names continue to be shown
Page 17 and 18: 172) Whether the respondents denied
Page 19 and 20: 19admission either denial or admiss
Page 21 and 22: 21CP 15/2008P ExportsThe respondent
Page 23 and 24: 23contended that the respondents al
Page 25 and 26: 25on them. On the other hand the Le
Page 27 and 28: 27vide their reply dated 13.9.2006
Page 29: 29independent valuer to value the a

before the company law board - Company Law Board Mumbai Bench

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?