IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
MADHURESH PRASAD, SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA
Sajal Dutta – Appellant
Versus
Reserve Bank of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. formation and initial funding of the ruby general hospital. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. challenges related to writ proceedings and petitioners' positions. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. claims of oppression and board dynamics. (Para 15 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 23) |
| 4. arguments about maintainability of the writ petition. (Para 21 , 22 , 24 , 26) |
| 5. arguments on the rbi's authority regarding share issuance. (Para 25 , 27 , 30 , 32) |
| 6. the role of shareholder rights in judicial proceedings. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 7. permissibility of importing second-hand equipment. (Para 36 , 37 , 39 , 40) |
| 8. validity and implications of rbi's decisions. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 9. clarifications on approvals related to share allotment. (Para 45 , 46 , 48 , 49) |
| 10. judicial review limitations on rbi's authority. (Para 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 11. res judicata and previous findings related to share issues. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 12. dismissal of the appeal. (Para 57 , 58) |
JUDGMENT :
MADHURESH PRASAD, J.
1. The Ruby General Hospital Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) was incorporated in the year 1991 by two non-resident Indians Dr. Kamal Dutta and Binod Prasad Sinha a
Kamal Kumar Dutta and Another vs. Ruby General Hospital Ltd. and Others
Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Escorts Ltd. and Others
Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Limited and Another vs. Reserve Bank of India
Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and Others
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs. Union of India
Union of India and Another vs. Arulmozhi Iniarasu and Others
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. and Others vs. Union of India and Others
Neptune Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others vs. Union of India and Another
Press Trust of India and Another vs. Union of India and Others
Individual shareholders possess the right to challenge statutory permissions affecting their interests, affirming judicial review against administrative authority actions under specific legal framewo....
The court ruled that the Board's resolution regarding a merger does not violate Company Act provisions, and the necessity for shareholder approval under Section 293 was not substantiated.
Financial irregularities – Impead of parties - Disputes in question can be effectively, completely and properly be adjudicated in the absence of applicant – Hence cannot be impleaded
The enforceability of a foreign judgment in India hinges on the jurisdiction and adherence to due process; a summary judgment from a superior court may be enforced if compliant with applicable legal ....
Rights issues diluting shareholding via exclusion of OCB shareholders without RBI compliance process or fair value held oppressive under proper purpose doctrine; AoA clauses unilaterally suspending r....
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.