PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
RUBY GENERAL HOSPITAL LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
KAMAL KUMAR DUTTA – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS appeal and the cross-appeal arising out of an order dated October 29, 1999, passed by the Company Law Board (hereinafter referred to as "the CLB" ).
( 2 ) BY consent of the parties both appeal and cross-appeal are taken up and are disposed of by this common judgment.
( 3 ) AN application was filed under Sections 397 and 398 of the said Act alleging various acts and oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the company before the learned Company Law Board by Dr. Kamal Kumar Dutta and one Dr. Binod Prasad Sinha on the facts summarised hereunder.
( 4 ) ON application of the company, which was incorporated in 1991, the Department of Industrial Development, Government of India (SIA) approved NRI investment in the said company. The company took a project to establish a hospital-cum-advanced diagnostic facility at Calcutta. The cost of the project would be about Rs. 11 crores out of which the share capital would be Rs. 9 crores and Rs. 8 crores out of the said share capital would be by way of NRI participation. Therefore, 88. 88 per cent, cost of the project were NRI investments in shares and balance by resident Indians.
( 5 ) DR. Kamal Kumar
Shanti Prasad Jain v. Kalinga Tubes Ltd.
Salil Dutta v. T. M. and M. C. Private Ltd.
Needle Industries (India) Ltd. v. Needle Industries Newey (India) Holding Ltd.
Sheth Mohanlal Ganpatram v. Shri Sayaji Jubilee Cotton and Jute Mills Co. Ltd.
Bajrang Prasad Jalan v. Mahabir Prasad Jalan
REFERRED TO : Maharani Lalita Rajya Lakshmi (M. P.) v. Indian Motor Co. (Hazaribagh) Ltd.
Nanalal Zaver v. Bombay Life Assurance Co. Ltd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.