Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
Rajib Paul – Appellant
Versus
Veteran Company Private Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of company formation. (Para 2) |
| 2. details of share transfer violations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. challenges to shareholding legitimacy. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's analysis on shareholding rights. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. final orders and modifications. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
Judgment :
Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.
1. This is an appeal under section 10F of the COMPANIES ACT , 1956 directed against an order dated 5 June, 2009 passed by the Company Law Board (CLB).
2. The brief facts culminating in the filing of this appeal are as follows:
a) In or about 1973, the Ministry of Defence had recommended the names of the following individuals for running a retail outlet at Haldia:
i) Rakhal Chandra Paul,
ii) Beni Madhab Das,
iii) Niranjan Ghosh,
iv) Sukumar Ray,
v) Provakar Das Gupta,
vi) Nilmani Sarkar and
vii) Major Nityananda Ray.
b) Pursuant to the above, on 21 January, 1974, the respondent no.1 namely Veteran Company Private Limited (the company) was incorporated by the above 7 ex-servicemen. At the time of incorporation, the Articles of Association of the company, inter alia, provided as follows:
“Article 6 – Subject to the provisions of these Articles the shares shall be un
The legitimacy of share transfers and directorship must comply with the company's Articles of Association, and findings lacking evidence can be deemed legally erroneous.
The judgement establishes that shareholders holding not less than one-tenth of a company have the right to apply under the Companies Act for remedies regarding oppression and mismanagement.
An appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act requires a question of law arising from the Company Law Board's decision; issues not previously adjudicated cannot be raised anew.
An appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act requires a question of law to have been adjudicated by the Company Law Board; issues not raised previously cannot be introduced later.
Share transfers made after the commencement of winding up are void unless sanctioned by the court, and must be justified as beneficial to the company.
Authorised Capital cannot be increased by Board of Directors – It is out of Authorised Capital that a company issues shares – It then becomes Issued Capital – Whatever is issued, need not be subscrib....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Duomatic Principle and the Doctrine of Indoor Management in determining the validity of actions taken by the company, as wel....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
