Practice Areas
Indirect Tax Cases
Direct Tax Cases
Intellectual Property
All Practice Areas
All Courts
Filter by Jurisdiction
All Courts
SC & All High Courts
All Tribunals
+ Company Law Board139
+ Bombay High Court83
+ National Company Law Tribunal73
+ National Company Law Appellate Tribunal41
+ Delhi High Court19
+ Madras High Court19
+ Central Information Commission16
+ Calcutta High Court15
+ Karnataka High Court15
+ Supreme Court Of India14
+ Kerala High Court11
+ SEBI8
+ Allahabad High Court6
+ Andhra Pradesh High Court6
+ Gujarat High Court6
+ Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal4
+ Telangana High Court4
+ District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission3
+ Orissa High Court3
+ Punjab & Haryana High Court3
+ Gauhati High Court2
+ Patna High Court2
+ Rajasthan High Court2
+ Debts Recovery Tribunal1
+ Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1
+ Jharkhand High Court1
+ AAR-GST0
+ Airports Economic Regulatory Authority Appellate Tribunal0
+ Airports Economic Regulatory Authority Of India0
+ Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, GST0
+ Appellate Tribunal For Electricity0
+ Appellate Tribunal For Foreign Exchange0
+ Appellate Tribunal For Forfeited Property0
+ Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property0
+ Appellate Tribunal- Prevention Of Money Laundering Act0
+ Armed Forces Tribunal0
+ Authority For Advance Rulings0
+ Authority for Advance Rulings, GST0
+ Board For Industrial Financial Reconstruction0
+ Board of Revenue0
+ Board of Revenue, Rajasthan0
+ CESTAT0
+ Central Administrative Tribunal0
+ Central Board of Excise & Customs0
+ Central Electricity Regulatory Commission0
+ Chhattisgarh High Court0
+ Collector Appeals0
+ Commissioner (Appeals)0
+ Competition Appellate Tribunal0
+ Competition Commission Of India0
+ Consumer Disputes Redressal0
+ Copyright Board0
+ Cyber Appellate Tribunal0
+ Deputy Collector0
+ District Court0
+ First Appellate Authority0
+ Himachal Pradesh High Court0
+ Insolvency And Bankruptcy Board Of India0
+ Intellectual Property Appellate Board0
+ Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court0
+ Jammu and Kashmir High Court0
+ Madhya Pradesh High Court0
+ Manipur High Court0
+ Meghalaya High Court0
+ Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission0
+ National Anti-Profiteering Authority0
+ National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission0
+ National Green Tribunal0
+ Petroleum And Natural Gas Regulatory Board0
+ Privy Council0
+ RERA0
+ Railway Claims Tribunal0
+ Right to Information0
+ Securities Appellate Tribunal0
+ Settlement Commission0
+ Sikkim High Court0
+ State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission0
+ Telecom Disputes Settlement And Appellate Tribunal0
+ Trade Marks Registry0
+ Tripura High Court0
+ Uttarakhand High Court0
Apply Filter
Court Filter
+ RBI
+ SEBI
+ Andhra Pradesh
+ Arunachal Pradesh
+ Assam
+ Bihar
+ Chandigarh
+ Chhattisgarh
+ Delhi
+ Goa
+ Gujarat
+ Haryana
+ Himachal Pradesh
+ Jharkhand
+ Karnataka
+ Kerala
+ Madhya Pradesh
+ Maharashtra
+ Manipur
+ Meghalaya
+ Mizoram
+ Nagaland
+ Odisha
+ Punjab
+ Rajasthan
+ Sikkim
+ Tamil Nadu
+ Telangana
+ Tripura
+ Uttarakhand
+ Uttar Pradesh
+ West Bengal
+ Supreme Court Of India
+ Allahabad High Court
+ Andhra Pradesh High Court
+ Bombay High Court
+ Calcutta High Court
+ Chhattisgarh High Court
+ Delhi High Court
+ Gauhati High Court
+ Himachal Pradesh High Court
+ Jammu and Kashmir High Court
+ Jharkhand High Court
+ Karnataka High Court
+ Kerala High Court
+ Madhya Pradesh High Court
+ Madras High Court
+ Manipur High Court
+ Meghalaya High Court
+ Orissa High Court
+ Patna High Court
+ Punjab & Haryana High Court
+ Rajasthan High Court
+ Sikkim High Court
+ Telangana High Court
+ Tripura High Court
+ Uttarakhand High Court
Apply Filter
Apply Filter
Judge Filter
Filter by Judge (Beta)
Judge Name
Bench
Other Filters
To
2021 Onwards122
From 2011 To 2020222
From 2001 To 2010107
From 1991 To 20000
From 1981 To 19900
From 1971 To 19800
From 1961 To 19700
From 1951 To 19600
Before 19500

Cases cited for the legal proposition you have searched for.

...agreed to send rupees five lakhs. Ramanujam was to get a salary for the services to be rendered by him in looking after the business of the hotel. A company by the name of Dale and Carrington Investments...Arun Kumar, J.— P.K Ramanujam, Appellant 2 and P.K Prathapan and his wife Pushpa Prathapan, Respondents 1 and 2 are the contesting parties in this litigation. Appellant 1 is...the company in which they are all shareholders and the litigation is about its control and management. Both parties are making claims to the right to control and manage the company. Briefly the facts...

..., the learned Counsel on behalf of the accused, has also relied on several decisions and particularly on Dale and Carrington Invt. (P) Ltd. v...the said Prashant Shirodkar had no authorization from the complainant Company to lodge the complaint. As stated by the Apex Court in Dale and Carrington Invt...Dale and Carrington Invt. (P) Ltd. v. P.K Prathapan (supra) and therefore I hold that the complaint in this case was not filed by the...

.... (2004) 9 SCC 204(c) Dale and Carrington ...P. Sathasivam, J.— Leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 14-11...-2006 in Company Appeals Nos. 14, 15, 17 and 18 of 2006 which were filed against the order dated 5-7-2006 in Company Petition No. 63 of 2005 of the Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench, Chennai...

...in Dale and Carrington (2005) 1 SCC 212, (2004) 7 Scale 584 thus, must be understood to have been rendered in the fact...decisions taken by the Board of Directors. Such a broad proposition of law, if understood to have been laid down in Dale and Carrington (2005...relied upon by Mr Desai.59. Dale & Carrington Invt. (P) Ltd. v. P.K Prathapan...

..., 2007(4) Bom.C.R. 465(P.B.) : 2007 DGLS(Cri.) soft 1955. 2. Dale and Carrington Inv..., namely, those of Madras High Court, Andhra Pradesh High Court and Delhi High Court, mentioned therein, and which decisions are in accordance with the view held by the Apex Court in (Dale and .... 3. M.M.T.C. Ltd. Vs. Medical Chemicals and Pharma(P) Ltd., 2002(1) Bom.C.R. 218(S.C.) : 2001 DGLS (soft...

...in Dale and Carrington Invt. P. Ltd. v. P.K Prathapan, [2004] 122 Comp Cas 161.... Similarly, the applicability of the prin ciples enunciated by the apex court in Dale and Carrington Invt. P, Ltd. v. P.K Prathapan...K.K Balu, Vice Chairman:— The applicant-petitioners, who have invoked the equitable jurisdiction of the Company Law Board under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (“the Act...

Can't display summary as content is Scanned, Please open the judgment to see full content.

...) Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgement in Dale and Carrington Invt. P. Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan dated 13.09.2004(iii) Allahabad High.../2008 in the interest of justice.(b) To restore the allotments of 20,00,000 shares and 84,99,937 shares that were originally allotted by the 1 Respondent Company on...01.03.1998 and 01.04.2006 respectively.(c) To set aside the illegal allotment of 45,00,000 shares alleged to have been allotted to the 9 Respondent and his family on 19.03.2007...

...just and equitable order instead of winding up the company as mentioned in sections 397 & 398 of the companies Act.18. The petitioners relied upon Dale and ...petitioners, is invalid. The ratio decided in Dale and Carrington (Supra) is not applicable in the given situation because in that case the appellant, Ramanujam who was in India, reduced the original...decided in Dale and Carrington (Supra) is not applicable to the present case.19. The petitioners also relied upon Kamal Kumar...

...Dale and Carrington Invt. (P) Ltd. v. P.K Prathapan...The Judgment of the Court was delivered byDr B.S Chauhan, J.— These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and final order dated 24-11...which the High Court rejected the claim of the appellant to maintain the company petition filed under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1956 Act...

...the decision reported in 2005(2)_ MLJ 10 (Dale and Carrington Investment (P) Limited and another v. P.K Prathapan and others) and culled our the following portion...This Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, dated 29.11.2004 in A.S No. 52 of 2002...modifying the decree and judgment made in O.S No. 76 of 2000, dated 11.07.2001 on the file of the District Munsif, Madurai Taluk.2. The gist of averments in the plaint is as follows...

...Applicant relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of Dale and Carrington Invt. (P) Limited... Shreeniwas Abode And House Ltd SECTION: 241(1)-242(4) OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 O R D E R 1. Mr. J.P. Sen, Ld...& Mr. Inayat Ali Qureshi, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2, R-3, R-5, R-6, R-7 and R-8 present. Mr. Hasan Shaikh, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.1 present...

...below has correctly found that the complaint was not maintainable at the instance of the power of attorney holder. It is submitted that with reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dale and Carrington Inve...resolution to represent the company. In Dale and Carrington's case (supra), it was held in paragraph 15 as follows:— “15. At this stage it may be appropriate to consider the legal...principally on the ground that the company was not properly represented before the court and also on the ground that the complaint could not have been maintained at Kayamkulam. The court also found that...

...any allotment made to gain control was not permissible, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dale and Carrington Investments (P) Ltd vs...and due diligence and in the interest of the Company, while issuing additional shares and the motive for the allotment should not be mala fide to gain control of the Company, as held in Dale and ...which also there is a sea of differences and thereby the Company's interest is at stake. While the petitioners, being majority shareholders, by virtue of the legal proposition laid down in Dale and ...

...". 10. In Dale and Carrington(P) Ltd And Another vs. P.K. Prathapan and Others... 9 this aspect of the matter are unsustainable and have been passed on an erroneous interpretation of the facts. [Dale and ...AND ORS. VS VETERAN COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. For the appellant : Mr. Kalyan Bandhopadhayay, Sr. Adv. Ms. Manju Bhuteria, Sr...

...is a closely held company. In Dale and Carrington Invt. P. Ltd. v. P.K Prathapan, [2004] 122 Comp Cas 161...S. Balasubramanian, Chairman:— The petitioners, who collectively held 7,600 shares out of 9,800 shares, thus contributing 77.6 per cent. shares in M/s. Pioneer Colours and Coatings P. Ltd...., have filed this petition alleging that the second respondent, without the consent and knowledge of the majority shareholders had issued and allotted, on various dates, 35,500 shares to himself and...

...the allotment of impugned shares, which is impermissible under law. Any allotment made to gain control is disallowed by the Supreme Court in Dale and Carrington In...shareholders and further not to be excluded from the day-to-day management of the company, in the light of the principles enunciated by the apex court in Dale and ...allotment should not be mala fide to gain control of the company, as held in Dale and Carrington Invt P. Ltd. v. P.K Prathapan...

...her case: Page 9 of 19 (i) Dale and Carrington Invt... Dale and Carrington Invt. (P) Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan and Ors.(supra) is that acts of... For Appellant: Ms. Prabha Swami, Mr. Nikhil Swami, Advocates. For Respondent: Mr. Goutham Shivshankar and Mr. A. Murali...

...of Dale and Carrington Invt. P. Ltd. v. P.K Prathapan, [2004] 122 Comp Cas 161...and is an act of oppression. The petitioner relied on the judgment of the apex court in the matter of Dale and Carrington Invt. P. Ltd. v...Smt. Vimla Yadav, Member:— In this order I am considering C.P No. 104 of 2005 filed under sections 397, 398, 399, 402, 403 and 111A wherein the petitioners have...

...:1. Dale and Carrington Investment P. Ltd. v. P.K Prathapan, [2004] 122 Comp Cas 161...allot shares and the alleged notice of offer are all fabricated. It is wrong to claim that under section 111, mala fide cannot be alleged in the matter of allotment of shares. In Dale and Carrington Investment...determined in a petition under section 111. Therefore, this petition should be dismissed. Referring to Dale and Car-rington Investment P. Ltd. v. P.K Prathapan, [2004] 122...