Category: Companies Act

Companies Act, 2013 — Section 185 — Loan to directors — Violation of Section 185 — Loan from company to director for securing bail without special resolution — Deposit of Rs. 50 Crores for bail sourced from company funds without proper approval — Held to be not sustainable in law.

2026 INSC 310 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SATINDER SINGH BHASIN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.…

Companies Act, 2013 — Section 66 — Reduction of Share Capital — Procedural Fairness — Minority Shareholders — Valuation of Shares — Non-disclosure of valuation report and fairness report in notice for general meeting — Held, not a “tricky notice” as statutory requirement for valuation report not mandated under Section 66 — Valuation by a related agency — Held, not a conflict of interest where internal auditor is independent and valuation agency follows accepted norms — Discount for Lack of Marketability (DLOM) — Held, applicable to illiquid shares, especially in absence of oppression — Share price fixation — Held reasonable based on market value of subsidiary, past offers, and rights issue.

2026 INSC 213 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PANNALAL BHANSALI Vs. BHARTI TELECOM LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Companies Act, 2013 — Sections 241, 242, 244, 59 — Oppression and mismanagement — Interim protection — Supreme Court’s role is to preserve the subject matter of the dispute until the competent forum adjudicates the matter — Interim measures should ensure that the subject matter remains protected while allowing the statutory forum to proceed with adjudication.

2026 INSC 226 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MONIVEDA CONSULTANTS LLP AND ANOTHER Vs. SHAJAS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih,…

Companies Act, 2013 — Section 212(6) Second Proviso and Sections 447, 448, 451 — Cognizance of Offence — Bar on Special Court — Private Complaint — Section 448 (Punishment for false statement) mandates liability under Section 447; thus, the offence under Section 448 is an “offence covered under Section 447” specified in Section 212(6) — The second proviso to Section 212(6) prohibits the Special Court from taking cognizance of such offences except upon a written complaint made by the Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), or an authorized Central Government officer — Cognizance cannot be taken upon a private complaint for offences under Section 448 or Section 451 (Punishment for repeated default) as they are inextricably linked to Section 447 — Taking cognizance under Section 448 without invoking the punishment section (Section 447) to circumvent the statutory bar is impermissible — Quashing of proceedings under Sections 448 and 451 of the Companies Act upheld. (Paras 12, 13, 26, 27, 33, 43, 44, 45, 47, 59, 60.I)

2026 INSC 42 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YERRAM VIJAY KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ. )…

The primary issue is whether the amalgamation of companies and the resulting transfer of leasehold rights amount to a transfer under the lease deed, requiring payment of unearned increase value to Delhi Development Authority (DDA) – The Court reasoned that the amalgamation did result in a transfer as per the lease deed’s clauses and that the appellant is liable to pay the unearned increase – The appeal was dismissed, confirming DDA’s demand for unearned increase value, and the respondent-DDA was allowed to withdraw the deposited amount with interest.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. JAIPRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS M/S. JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD.) — Appellant Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S.…

Paid-up capital – Appellants cannot be described as having acted in a defective or in an unfair manner, in the matter of allotment of further shares particularly when the contention of the respondents about the bona fides of the decision to increase the authorised capital has been found in favour of the appellants

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HASMUKHLAL MADHAVLAL PATEL AND ANR. — Appellant Vs. AMBIKA FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and B.V.…

HELD purported to project a case of mismanagement and oppression by the appellants in the Petitions styled under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, By Order dated  the NCLT, Ahmedabad Bench disposed of the petitions with the following directions –In this set of facts, it is not just and equitable to order winding up of the company

HASMUKHLAL MADHAVLAL PATEL AND ANR. vs. AMBIKA FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8195 OF 2018 J. [K.M. JOSEPH] …………………………………………J. [B.V. NAGARATHNA] Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL…

Companies Act, 2013 – Section 164(2)(b) – Insolvency Resolution Process – Unless a categorical finding was recorded in the competent forum as regards any such default and unless specific order disqualifying the resolution applicant as director because of such default came into existence, it could not have been taken by way of any process of assumption that the appellant-resolution applicant was disqualified

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M.K. RAJAGOPALAN — Appellant Vs. DR. PERIASAMY PALANI GOUNDER AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed