Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The NCLT gave the first right to buy shares to the petitioners and then the Deccan Group. If neither party purchased the other’s shares, the NCLT would consider winding up the company under Section 242(1)(b) of the Companies Act.
by Prachi Johri* and Rishi Thakur**
by Prachi Dutta*
The NCLAT noted that the NCLT had not delegated its jurisdiction to the 15-member committee but tasked the committee to act under the NCLT’s oversight, ensuring compliance with its guidance and observations.
Cap of stamp duty of Rs 25 lakhs on increase in share capital under the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958
by Urvashi Misra* and Anant Narayan Misra**
MCA directs that all proceedings from 16-9-2024 will be done electronically.
by Sidharth Sethi† and Shreya Sircar††
“A provision vesting “inherent powers” on a Court or Tribunal are to be used sparingly and should not be used to imply and read in substantive powers where the statue itself does not prescribe such powers.”
The NCLAT criticized the appellants for unnecessarily burdening the Tribunal with excessive documentation, voluminous records and citations of little value, thereby wasting Tribunal’s resources and acting contrary to professional ethics.
The NCLT ordered the respondents to maintain the status quo regarding existing shareholders and their shareholding.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 34 and 37 r/w Ss. 2(4) and 16 — Jurisdiction of arbitrator to adjudicate under
The Delhi High Court said that the winding up proceedings which have not progressed to an advanced stage before the High Courts, ought to be transferred to the NCLT.
“The High Court could have directed the complaint to be withdrawn and presented before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction.”
by Ira Srivastava*
The NCLT issued a notice and sought BharatPe’s response and fixed the next date of hearing on 04-04-2024.