Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD. versus PODDAR PROJECTS LTD. & ANR.

Decided
13 February 2007
Judges listed
TARUN CHATTERJEE (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2007] 2 S.C.R. 573 · 2007 INSC 138
Also cited as
  • (2007) 2 SCC 431 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Certain shares of the appellant-company were being held by Poddar Udyog Limited. Under a scheme of arrangement sanctioned by ~he Calcutta High Court on 19th August, 1997, a part of the business division of Poddar Udyog Limited was transferred to the respondent No. I herein. On 3rd September, 1999, the respondent No. I, Poddar Projects Limited, sold ~he shares to the respondent No.2, Vijaya Finance Corporation Limited. The said respondent lodged the shares with the appellant-company herein for registration on 12th November, 200 I. The appellant-company refused to register the ~aid shares on 9th January, 2002 and intimated the advocate for the respo~dent No.2 of its said decision.

p. 574, margin E

2

On 16th May, 20.02, the shares were again lodged for registration on behalf of the respondent No.1-Poddar Projects Limited, but once again the appellant-company refused to register the same.

p. 574, margin G

3

Such refusal led to the filing of an application by the respondents herein under Section 111 A of the Companies Act, 1956 on 28th October, 2002. The Company Law Board allowed the application No. I herein by directing the appellant-company in favour of the respondent No. I, but declined respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 accepted any appeal. The appellant-company being dissatisfied Company Law Board filed an appeal before Section I OF of the Companies Act, 1956. Before submitted on behalf of the appellant-company delivered in terms of Section 108 (IA) of for registration was itself defective and could It was further submitted that till such time in favour of the respondent No. I-company, in the name of the subsequent transferee, namely, Certain other objections were also taken regarding the fact that the transferee was not a desirable

pp. 574–575, margin G

4

The Calcutta High Court negated the the appellant-company and affirmed those against the said order of the Calcutta High been filed.

p. 575, margin C

5

Although, in the appeal a question registration of transfer of shares effected under compromise or amalgamation sanctioned by 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, it instrument of transfer as contemplated by time of the hearing of the appeal, it was submitted company that the said question had been rendered that during the pendency of the appeal, the with the direction of the Calcutta High Court shares in the name of the respondent No.1-compnay. No.2 had not preferred any appeal against Board, the same became final as far as the Although, on behalf of respondent No.2, of the Company Law Board, as applicable to operate in its favour, such a submission is not No.2 stands on a different footing. Till such registered in the name of the respondent No. No.2 for subsequent registration of the same considered. Accordingly, the direction given A respect of the respondent No. I could not apply to the respondent No.2 and that is why the said respondent No.2 did not prefer any separate appeal against the order of the Company Law Board.

pp. 575–576, margin D

6

As pointed out by Mr. Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant-company, the questions raised in the appeal have been rendered academic having regard to the fact that the appellant-company has since registered the shares in question in the name of the respondent No.I-company.

p. 576

7

The appeal is, therefore, disposed of as having become infructuous and the questions raised therein are left open for decision in an appropriate case.

p. 576, margin B

8

There will be no order. as to costs. N.J .. Appeal disposed of.

p. 576, margin C