Back
V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
G. Kalaiselvan – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Company, Chennai – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to dispose of the Petitioner's representation, dated 28.8.2020 after affording personal hearing opportunity, within the time frame fixed by this Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.
3. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner and his family members are the joint owners of 1.60 acres of lands in S.F. Nos. 315/1, 2, 3 and 316/2 of Kottapatti Majra, Sembattu Village of Sub-Registrar Office, K. Sathanoor, Tiruchirappalli District. The Petitioner has entered into a Joint Development Agreement with the second respondent company for promoting the apartments/flats in their land and to get approval from the Government and to promote apartments, the Petitioner and family members executed a restricted conditional General Power of Attorney bearing No. 1012/20145, dated 23.2.2015 to the third respondent, who is the Director and major share holder of the second respondent company and he is the Kingpin of the aforesaid second respondent company. The General Power of attorney was only for const
The court highlighted the importance of obtaining permission under the Companies Act, 2013 before taking action on the petitioner's representation.
Disputes related to the misuse of power of attorney and property transactions in a real estate business fall under the jurisdiction of the civil court and cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceeding b....
Corporate entities must apply directly for property allotments; claims based on fraudulent misrepresentation are barred under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act.
An agent must act in the principal's best interests; unauthorized sales executed under a power of attorney without consent are fraudulent.
The court upheld the legality of share allotments and asset sales under financial distress, ruling no oppressive conduct by respondents was present.
Dispositions made after winding up under Section 536(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, are void unless validated by the Court, reaffirming the authority of the Official Liquidator over disputed properti....
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
