Company law CIA 1 case:

1. M.L. Mittal v. International Travel House Ltd. and Others (2010) – The board of
directors made a decision to sell the company's assets, which was challenged by Mittal,
who argued that the decision was invalid and detrimental to the interests of the company
and its shareholders. The Delhi High Court held that the decision made by the board was
valid and in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act and other relevant
laws. The Court noted that the board had acted in the best interests of the company and its
shareholders and that the decision had been made in accordance with the provisions of
the Companies Act and other relevant laws. The case highlights the limits of
shareholder's power to challenge decisions made by the board and the importance of the
board acting in the best interests of the company and its shareholders.
2. Parekh Aluminex Ltd. v. Secured Financial Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2010) - The
board of directors made a decision to change the financial year of the company, which
was challenged by the creditor who argued that the decision was invalid. The Bombay
High Court held that the decision made by the board was valid and could not be
challenged by the creditor. The Court noted that the board had acted in accordance with
the provisions of the Companies Act and other relevant laws, and that the decision to
change the financial year had been made in the best interests of the company. The case
highlights the limits of a creditor's power to challenge decisions made by the board of
directors and the importance of the board acting in accordance with the provisions of the
Companies Act and other relevant laws.
3. SEBI v. Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. and Others (2012) - SEBI alleged that
Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. and its directors had failed to comply with
regulatory requirements relating to the issue and transfer of certain bonds, and had
engaged in fraudulent and manipulative practices. The Supreme Court of India held that
Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. and its directors were in violation of securities laws
and ordered them to refund the money collected from the bonds to investors. The Court
also imposed penalties on the company and its directors for their non-compliance with
regulatory requirements and for engaging in fraudulent and manipulative practices. The
 case highlights the importance of compliance with securities laws and the role of
regulatory authorities in protecting the interests of investors.
4. M.L. Sharma v. Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and Others (2004) - The shareholder
challenged a decision made by the board of directors to issue new shares, which would
dilute his shareholding. The Supreme Court of India held that the decision made by the
board was valid, but emphasized the importance of the board acting in the best interests
of the company and its shareholders. The Court noted that the issuance of new shares
could have a material impact on the value of the existing shares, and that the board had a
duty to consider the interests of all shareholders, including the minority shareholders. The
case highlights the importance of the board of directors acting in the best interests of the
company and its shareholders, and the role of the judiciary in protecting the rights of
shareholders.
5. Tata Sons Ltd v. Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd and Others (2021) - The dispute arose
after Tata Sons Ltd changed its articles of association, which reduced the voting rights of
certain shareholders, including Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. The Delhi High Court held
that the changes made to the articles of association were valid and that Tata Sons Ltd had
the power to make such changes. The Court also held that the changes had been made in
the best interests of Tata Sons Ltd and its shareholders, and that the voting rights of the
shareholders had not been unfairly prejudiced. The case highlights the importance of the
board of directors acting in the best interests of the company and its shareholders, and the
power of the board to make changes to the articles of association. It also underscores the
role of the judiciary in protecting the rights of shareholders and ensuring that changes
made by the board are in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act and other
relevant laws.
6. Cipla Ltd v. Morris Knudsen International Ltd and Others (2007) - The dispute
arose after Morris Knudsen International Ltd sought to terminate the joint venture
agreement with Cipla Ltd, claiming that Cipla Ltd had breached certain provisions of the
agreement. The Bombay High Court held that the termination of the joint venture
agreement was invalid and that Morris Knudsen International Ltd had failed to establish
that Cipla Ltd had breached any provisions of the agreement. The Court emphasized the
importance of the parties to a joint venture agreement acting in good faith and in
accordance with the terms of the agreement. The case highlights the importance of the
parties to a joint venture agreement acting in accordance with the terms of the agreement
and the role of the judiciary in resolving disputes between joint venture partners.