Skip to main content

NCLAT: When application merits waiver under Companies Act

In Anant Kajare v. Eknath Aher, decided on 30-11-2017, the appellant has challenged the order dated 14th July, 2017 passed by National Company Law, Tribunal, Chennai Bench wherein the Tribunal granted ‘waiver’ under the proviso to Section 244(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. According to the Tribunal, the petitioner had made out the case for grant of waiver under Section 244.

The NCLAT, New Delhi, while adjudicating the grant of waiver by the Tribunal, opined that the impugned order had been passed in a mechanical manner by the Tribunal without considering any exceptional circumstances to allow the application for ‘waiver’ under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 244, the Tribunal has not applied its mind as to whether (proposed) application under Section 241 merits consideration and whether it relates to ‘oppression and mismanagement’.

NCLAT also explicitly held in Cyrus Investments case that The Tribunal is required to take into consideration the relevant facts and evidence, as pleaded in the application for waiver under Section 241 and required to record reasons reflecting its satisfaction to suggest that the applicants have made out some exceptional case for waiver and to form opinion on whether the proposed allegation pertains to ‘oppression and mismanagement’ of the company or its members.

Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2017/10/18/nclat-lays-factors-forming-opinion-whether-application-merits-waiver/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more