“When a requisition is made by a shareholder calling for a general meeting of the company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 validly to remove a director and appoint another, an injunction cannot be granted by the Court to restrain the holding of a general meeting.
The holders of the majority of the stock of a Corporation have the power to appoint, by election, directors of their choice along with the power to regulate them by a resolution for their removal. This is the essence of corporate democracy.
“

In this case, the judges favoured the rights of the petitioners enshrined under Part III of the Constitution. The Court held that the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1969 related to the award of compensation to the banks upon being nationalized had not been followed, and thus, the Act was liable to be struck down.

The judgement averred that as long as the income is derived from an agricultural source forming as the primary source, the exemption from tax laws can be claimed under the Income Tax Rules.

The case held that a pre-incorporation contract entered into by the companywould not bind the company, subsequent to the incorporation of the company if the conditions of the pre-incorporation agreement have not been fulfilled by the other party. In this case, the company sought to remove the plaintiff after the incorporation, whereas the agreement prohibited the same, but the company was held to be free to do so.

The case dealt with Fraudulent Prospectus, Concealment of Contract and Responsibility of the Company to refund the price paid for the shares. The plaintiff sought to recover the amount paid by him for the shares in the company, namely the Lisbon Steam Tramways Company.

False Imprisonment is a situation of restricting the movement and freedom of another person without any legal justification or the permission of the restricted person.

The compensation for mismanagement as well as for oppression does not exist in the first place when there is no proof of the act that is alleged. The case also deals with the rules governing annual meetings of a body corporate.

Introduction The case was one of the landmark cases in the development of the Companies Laws, since the case established the fact that the company in itself cannot act independently, or on its own as an individual. Rather, it was

When the moratorium period is imposed then in such case certain activities as prescribed under the Act has been kept on stay i.e., during this time the corporate debtor shall not initiate the arbitration proceeding. In other words, that when the imposition of moratorium takes place then during that time the corporate debtor will not be allowed to invoke the provisions of remedy available under various different provisions.

The court in this case discusses whether the plaintiff should be allowed to use “forma pauperis” and proceed with his several law suits filed against “UFS Debt Recovery Service” and “Oxford Collection Agency” along with other defendants mentioned in his third application