The court in this case talks about oppression of shareholders, self-sale of company’s share and requirement of notice. The case has differentiated between the two sects of provision i.e. Section 100-104 and Section-402, so as to prevent the majority from again, intervening an appeal brought against the same majority.
The decision cleared major loopholes in the Companies Act, 1956 and the SEBI Act of 1992, by providing proper interpretation and larger scope to provisions at dispute. The main issues cleared were regarding ‘hybrid’ securities, public offers of securities, jurisdiction of SEBI, etc.
The court in this case discusses the doctrine of constructive notice and doctrine of indoor management. The article also deals with how various countries have dealt with the decision made in this case.
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.
The case is related to the contravention of Section-299, petition filed under Section-633, cessation of directorship under Section-283(1) (i) and liabilities that arose from the contravention, under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter, “the Act”). The case was between a director and a company which was accompanied by the Registrar of Companies.
This judgement sets an example that prosecution cannot be quashed merely because the nature of the case appears to be civil. Therefore, the judgement has also increased the brink for quashing of prosecution under S.482 by the High Courts and ensures that there is not mass quashing of criminal proceedings.
The court in this case reiterated the existence of a third category of companies and thus increased the scope of application of provisions of the Companies Act. The court also did not hold back from ensuring substantial justice even though the case petition failed.
In Rich Paints Ltd. v. Vadodara Stock Exchange Ltd. , the Judges, have not considered the literal meaning of the provisions of the statutes but have considered the provisions in relation to the statute as a whole. The court in this case has interpreted Section 69 and 73 of Companies act 1956.
This judgement is a landmark Judgement on the maintainability of a writ petition under article 32. The court in this case has widened the scope of “aggrieved” person and allowed the petition to move forward to hear the contention of both sides.
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