Search Results for "Public Interest Directors"

1245 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 1245 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Karnataka High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Appointment of Director in BESCOM Board Without Hearing. Impugned Order Quashed for Violation of Principles of Natural Justice Under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

The petitioner, G Ashok Kumar, was working as Managing Director of Karnataka Vidyuth Karkane and was also a nominated Director (Technical) on the Boar...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Process Against Directors in Cheque Dishonour Case Due to Lack of Specific Allegations. Criminal proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be initiated against directors without specific averments of their role in the company's affairs.

The case involves two criminal applications filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) challenging a common order dated...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Considers Quashing of Process Issued Under Section 138 NI Act Against Directors Due to Insolvency Moratorium and Insufficient Averments. Complaint Did Not Specify Role of Each Director and Cheques Were Presented After Moratorium Order Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Background: Two criminal applications under Section 482 CrPC were filed by nine directors of M/s. Amtek Auto Ltd. seeking quashing of process orders i...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Revokes Leave for Representative Suit in Tata Group Shareholder Dispute. Court holds that shareholders of different listed companies lack the same interest required under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC.

The Plaintiffs, claiming to be shareholders of various listed companies of the Tata Group, filed a representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Cod...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Petition by Foreign Shareholder Challenging Constitutional Validity of Section 272(1)(e) Companies Act, 2013. Section 272(1)(e) is not ultra vires the Constitution; second proviso to Section 272(3) does not apply to petitions under Section 272(1)(e).

The petitioner, Devas Employees Mauritius Private Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of Mauritius and a shareholder of Devas Multimedia Pr...