The court in this case discusses the usage of general words in a company’s name and trademark and how to protect the same. The issue between the parties was regarding the name of the companies and similarity between them, which, as alleged, could eventually cause damage to the first company’s reputation from the acts done by the second company.
The court in this case talks about the registration of shares in Public stock market and the criteria under Companies act for the same. This judgment is still relevant when dispute arises based on such kinds of securities
The case analysis incorporates the Irish Companies Act, 1990, as it specifically mentions about de-jure and shadow directors and restrictions upon them, when a company goes insolvent. The analysis part also incorporates criticisms to the case at hand and how concepts of de-facto and shadow director have developed.
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.
