(2) When the management is carried on in such a way that the minority is disregarded or oppressed Oppression of minority shareholders will be a just and equitable ground where those who control the company abuse their power to such an extent as to seriously prejudice the interest of minority shareholders.
(3) Where there s a deadlock in the management of the company. When shareholding is more or less equal and there is a case of complete deadlock in the company on account of lack of probity in the management of the company and there is no hope or possibility of smooth and efficient continuance of the company as a commercial concern, there may arise a case fro winding up ion the just and equitable ground.
(4) Where public interest is likely to be prejudiced. Having regard to the provisions of Secs. 397 and 398 (dealing with prevention of oppression and mismanagement) where the concept of prejudice to public interest is introduced, it would appear that the court winding up a company will have to take into consideration not only the interest of shareholders and creditors but also public interest in the shape of need of the community, interest of the employees, etc.
(5) When the company was formed to carry out fraudulent or illegal business or when the business of the company become illegal.
(6) When the company is a mere bubble and does not carry on any business or does not have any property [London & County Coal Co; Re (1867) L.R. 3 Eq. 355].
(7) If the company has acted against the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states. Public order, decency or morality.
(8) If the tribunal is of the opinion that the company should be wound up under the circumstances specified in Sec. 424 The last two clauses in Sec. 333(1) have been added by the Companies [Amendment] Act.
MORE
(3) Where there s a deadlock in the management of the company. When shareholding is more or less equal and there is a case of complete deadlock in the company on account of lack of probity in the management of the company and there is no hope or possibility of smooth and efficient continuance of the company as a commercial concern, there may arise a case fro winding up ion the just and equitable ground.
(4) Where public interest is likely to be prejudiced. Having regard to the provisions of Secs. 397 and 398 (dealing with prevention of oppression and mismanagement) where the concept of prejudice to public interest is introduced, it would appear that the court winding up a company will have to take into consideration not only the interest of shareholders and creditors but also public interest in the shape of need of the community, interest of the employees, etc.
(5) When the company was formed to carry out fraudulent or illegal business or when the business of the company become illegal.
(6) When the company is a mere bubble and does not carry on any business or does not have any property [London & County Coal Co; Re (1867) L.R. 3 Eq. 355].
(7) If the company has acted against the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states. Public order, decency or morality.
(8) If the tribunal is of the opinion that the company should be wound up under the circumstances specified in Sec. 424 The last two clauses in Sec. 333(1) have been added by the Companies [Amendment] Act.
MORE
More on What is ‘just and Equitable’ Clause?
![More on What is ‘just and Equitable’ Clause?]()
Reviewed by Hosne
on
8:59 AM
Rating:
