Back
REKHA PALLI
Morgan Securities And Credits Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Bpl Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT
I.A. 7416/2023 (Order XXXIX Rule 4, CPC)
1. The present application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) preferred by the applicants/defendant nos. 7 & 8 seeks modification of order dated 13.01.2023 passed by this Court in so far as it directs the defendants to maintain status quo as regards the present shareholding held by them qua various allotment of shares in defendant no.2, in favor of defendant nos. 3,4,6,7 and 8 which have been carried out from time to time. Consequently, vide the said order, the defendant nos. 7 & 8 have been restrained from selling/transferring 6,88,91,074 and 58,56,515 shares (BPLM Shares) respectively held by them in defendant no.2/BPL Medical Technologies Pvt. Limited. By way of this modification application, the applicants pray that they be granted permission to sell and transfer these shares held by them to any other party deemed fit.
2. Before dealing with the rival submissions of the parties, the brief factual matrix as is necessary for adjudication of the present application may be noted.
3. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 53,
The main legal point established is that the defendants were allowed to transfer their shareholding in defendant no.2, as their purchase of shares was not illegal, and there was no order restraining ....
The court upheld the entitlement of the applicants to transfer the shares purchased in the open market, originally held by CRBCML, despite the proscriptions by the RBI and the court order.
A defendant must establish a prima facie case of contempt with sufficient particulars and evidence; a Stay Order does not prohibit share increases unless explicitly stated.
Shareholders consenting to private placement and benefiting via share sales are estopped from alleging oppression; Section 77 violations need strict proof of purpose-specific funding, not mere infere....
The court affirmed that no notice was required for the sale of charged shares, and the Plaintiff failed to prove claims of breach of contract and undervaluation.
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
