R. Shetty Sons vs. State of Maharashtra (1979)
company ap_lawcet intermediate real_caseYaar, this case from 1979 has got me confused! R. Shetty Sons was a company with 10 shareholders, including R. Shetty himself. One of the main provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (which we're still using in AP LAWCET's curriculum) is that a company must have at least 7 shareholders. But R. Shetty Sons was having only 3 shareholders left after 7 resigned. Guess what? The High Court of Bombay ruled that the remaining 3 shareholders didn't have to comply with the Companies Act, 1956 since the 7 other shareholders had left. I mean, yeh kya logic hai? What do you guys think about this judgment? Shouldn't the Companies Act be followed regardless of how many shareholders left or joined?
1 comments
1 Comments
Sign in to join the discussion.
Bhai, I don't think "R. Shetty Sons vs. State of Maharashtra (1979)" is as straightforward an example of "public purpose" as many say. In this case, the Maharashtra government granted 3.5 acres to an industrialist. Wasn't it more like favoring a private entity over the public? We need to delve deeper into the motivations behind such land allocations.