The following are the summaries of the 5 cases you requested, covering

their facts, legal issues, and final judgments.

1. Ganga Reddy v. MG-6 Wholesome Market (India) (P) Ltd. (2019)

* Facts: Sri Ganga Reddy filed an execution petition under Section 424 of
the Companies Act, 2013, to enforce an order dated August 2, 2019. The
earlier order had directed the Respondents to pay ₹1,42,84,389 to the
company, MG-6 Wholesome Market. The petitioner also sought the
attachment of the Respondents' properties and the removal of
Respondent No. 1 from his directorship for non-compliance.

* Issues:

* Whether an individual shareholder can file an execution petition for a

relief directed to be paid to the company.

* Whether the petitioner’s own conduct (appointing his son as director

and shifting the registered office) violated the original tribunal's directions.

* Judgment: The NCLT (Bengaluru Bench) emphasized that a company is a

separate juristic person. Since the monetary relief was directed to be paid
to the company and not to the petitioner personally, the petitioner could
not maintain the execution petition in his individual capacity. The court
also set aside a notice for a Board meeting that did not comply with the
statutory 7-day notice period required under Section 173(2).

2. Anant Rathi Commodities Ltd. v. Encore Natural Polymers (P) Ltd.

(2019)

* Facts: This case involved a Commercial Summary Suit regarding failed

commodity trades on the National Spot Exchange Limited (NSEL). The
plaintiff (Anant Rathi) had paid approximately ₹1.45 crore to the
defendant for purchasing sugar. It was later discovered that the defendant
had executed the trade in the name of a different client.

* Issues:

* Whether a debt was "due and payable" if the defendant claimed the
funds were stuck with NSEL.

* Whether a winding-up petition is maintainable when there are

allegations of fraud and misrepresentation.

* Judgment: The Bombay High Court held that the defendant's failure to
execute the trade in the plaintiff's name constituted a breach. The court
noted that while NSEL operations were suspended, the defendant could
not deny liability for a trade that was never properly executed for the
plaintiff. The defendant was directed to deposit the disputed amount with
the court to protect the plaintiff’s claim.

3. Unitech Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies (ROC), Delhi and Haryana (2019)

* Facts: Unitech Ltd. had accepted massive deposits (over ₹600 crore)
from more than 56,000 depositors. Under Section 74 of the Companies Act
2013, the company was required to repay these. The ROC initiated
criminal proceedings against the company and its directors for default.
However, the NCLAT had previously granted an extension for repayment.

* Issues:

* Whether criminal prosecution for non-repayment of deposits is valid

while an extension for repayment granted by the Tribunal (NCLAT) is still
active.

* Whether the continuation of such criminal proceedings amounts to an

abuse of the process of law.

* Judgment: The Delhi High Court ruled that since the NCLAT had granted
an interim extension of the compliance period, the criminal complaint filed
by the ROC was premature. The court stayed the criminal proceedings,
holding that prosecution cannot be initiated for a "default" during a period
that the Tribunal has legally extended.

4. Atlas Cycles (Haryana) Ltd. v. Vikram Kapur (2019)

* Facts: A dispute arose between family factions managing different units

of Atlas Cycles. One unit (Sonepat) had become non-functional, leading to
massive financial liabilities and bounced cheques. To prevent the initiation
of Corporate Insolvency (IBC), the Board wanted to sell "non-core assets"
to pay off creditors.

* Issues:

* Whether a company can be permitted to sell assets to settle debts

while a petition for oppression and mismanagement (Sections 241-242) is
pending.
 * The interplay between maintaining a company's "going concern"
status and the rights of minority shareholders.

* Judgment: The NCLAT allowed the company, through its Board, to find
viable purchasers for its non-core assets but mandated that no sale could
occur without the prior permission of the Tribunal. This was intended to
balance the need to satisfy creditors (to avoid insolvency) with the need
to protect the company's assets during a management dispute.

5. V.R.G. Healthcare (P) Ltd. v. Ganesh Ramchandra Chakkarwar (2019)

* Facts: This case stemmed from allegations of oppression and

mismanagement where the NCLT had ordered a forensic audit of the
company’s accounts to investigate financial irregularities. The directors
challenged this order, claiming it was passed without deciding the main
petition on its merits.

* Issues:

* Whether the NCLT can order a forensic audit as an interim measure.

* Whether an appeal can be filed against a "consent order" (an order

where parties initially agreed to a course of action).

* Judgment: The NCLAT dismissed the appeal, holding that a forensic

audit by an independent auditor is a valid tool for the Tribunal to
impartially investigate claims of siphoning funds. Furthermore, since the
directors had originally consented to the audit process before the NCLT,
they could not later challenge it in appeal under Section 421(2).

Here are the summaries for cases 6 through 12, focusing on the facts,
legal issues, and the final judgments as per the Companies Act and
relevant legal principles.

6. Shiv Kumar Agarwal v. Lal Chand Singhal (2019)

* Facts: Lal Chand Singhal (Respondent) claimed to have deposited ₹75

lakhs as a fixed deposit with Moongipa Investments Ltd. When the
company failed to repay the amount with interest, Singhal filed an
application under Section 73(4) of the Companies Act, 2013. The NCLT
initially ordered the attachment of the directors' properties, alleging they
siphoned off funds.
 * Issue: Whether the NCLT can order the attachment of personal
properties of directors in a summary proceeding for the repayment of
deposits.

* Judgment: The NCLAT noted that while the matter was pending, the
parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for
repayment in installments. The Appellate Tribunal stayed the NCLT's harsh
directions to allow the company to fulfill its repayment obligations as per
the settlement, emphasizing that the primary goal is the recovery of the
depositors' money.

7. Man Industries (India) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2019)

* Facts: A company declared dividends but withheld payment from one

specific shareholder due to an ongoing family feud between two brothers
(the JCM and RCM groups). The directors claimed protection under Section
127(c) of the Companies Act, which provides an exception if there is a
dispute regarding the right to receive the dividend.

* Issue: Does a personal family dispute between directors/shareholders

constitute a "bona fide dispute" that excuses the non-payment of
dividends?

* Judgment: The Bombay High Court held that the "dispute" mentioned in
Section 127(c) must be a dispute between the shareholder and the
company (e.g., over title to shares), not an internal family or civil dispute.
Withholding dividends based on personal enmity is a criminal offense
under Section 127, and the court refused to quash the process against the
directors.

8. SBI Global Factors Ltd. v. Official Liquidator of Minar International Ltd.

(2019)

* Facts: A suit was initiated against a company that later went into
liquidation. Under the Companies Act, 1956, "leave of the court" was
required to proceed with a suit against a company in liquidation. After the
1956 Act was repealed, an ex-director challenged the validity of the suit,
arguing the court had lost jurisdiction.

* Issue: Whether legal proceedings initiated under the Companies Act,

1956, remain valid after the enactment of the Companies Act, 2013.
 * Judgment: The Bombay High Court clarified that the repeal of the old
Act does not automatically nullify ongoing proceedings or orders. It
allowed the Official Liquidator to defend the suit and permitted the
plaintiff to proceed, provided they funded the legal costs of the liquidator,
ensuring the company’s remaining assets were preserved for creditors.

9. Smiti Golyan v. Nulon India Ltd. (2019)

* Facts: This case involved a dispute over the ownership and transfer of
shares based on a gift deed. The appellants argued that the shares were
transferred without consideration and that the NCLT should have
adjudicated the ownership of the shares.

* Issue: At what point does a person legally become a "shareholder" with

full rights, and is the NCLT the correct forum to decide complex title
disputes?

* Judgment: The NCLAT held that a transfer of shares is only complete

when it is registered in the company's books. Until registration, the person
named in the register remains the legal shareholder. It further clarified
that while NCLT handles registration issues, complex questions of "title" or
"ownership" (like the validity of a gift deed) might require a Civil Court if
they involve deep factual disputes.

10. Manoj Bathla v. Vishwanath Bathla (2019)

* Facts: A shareholder alleged that his shareholding was clandestinely

and fraudulently reduced from 25% to 0.33% through forged documents.
He sought a "waiver" of the requirement to hold at least 10% shares to file
a petition for oppression and mismanagement under Section 244.

* Issue: Should a waiver be granted when the petitioner’s shareholding is

below the 10% threshold due to the very acts of oppression they are
complaining about?

* Judgment: The NCLAT upheld the waiver. It ruled that if a shareholder’s

interest is reduced through fraud or manipulation, the court should not
adopt a "bloodthirsty" or technical approach. To prevent injustice, the
petitioner should be allowed to prosecute the case even if their current
holding is below the statutory limit.
11. Salomon v. Salomon & Co., Ltd. (1897)

* Facts: Aron Salomon converted his sole proprietorship into a limited

company. He, his wife, and five children were the only shareholders. He
took debentures as part-payment for the sale. When the company went
insolvent, unsecured creditors claimed that the company was a "sham"
and Salomon should be personally liable.

* Issue: Is a company a separate legal person distinct from its

shareholders?

* Judgment: This is the foundation of modern Company Law. The House of

Lords held that once a company is validly incorporated, it is a separate
legal entity. Salomon was a different person from Salomon & Co. Ltd.
Therefore, he was not liable for the company's debts, and his secured
debentures were to be paid before the unsecured creditors.

12. Daimler Co., Ltd. v. Continental Tyre and Rubber Co. (1916)

* Facts: A company was incorporated in England to sell tires made in

Germany. All its shareholders except one (who was the secretary) were
German residents. During WWI, the company sued to recover a debt. The
defendant argued that paying the debt would constitute "trading with the
enemy."

* Issue: Can the "corporate veil" be lifted to determine the "character" of

a company during wartime?

* Judgment: The House of Lords held that although the company was an
English entity, its "brains" and "control" were in Germany (an enemy
country). The court pierced the corporate veil to determine that the
company had acquired an enemy character. Therefore, the suit was
dismissed as it would involve illegal trading with an enemy.

Here are the summaries for the final set of cases (13 through 19), focusing
on the foundational doctrines of Company Law such as Separate Legal
Entity, Ultra Vires, Indoor Management, and Minority Rights.

13. Lee v. Lee’s Air Farming, Ltd. (1960)

 * Facts: Lee formed a company for aerial top-dressing. He was the
majority shareholder, the sole "Governing Director," and the company's
chief pilot. While flying for the company, he died in a crash. His widow
claimed workers' compensation.

* Issue: Can a person be a "master" (Director) and a "servant" (Employee)

of the same company at the same time?

* Judgment: The Privy Council held that Lee and the company were
separate legal entities. A person can function in dual capacities. As a
director, he gave orders, and as a pilot, he received them from the
company. Thus, he was a "worker," and his widow was entitled to
compensation.

14. Workmen v. Associated Rubber Industries Ltd. (1985)

* Facts: A parent company held shares in another company and received

dividends. To avoid paying higher bonuses to its workmen (which were
calculated based on profits), the company created a wholly-owned
subsidiary and transferred the shares to it. The parent company’s "profits"
decreased, and workers' bonuses were reduced.

* Issue: Can the corporate veil be lifted if a subsidiary is created solely to

avoid a statutory obligation to workers?

* Judgment: The Supreme Court pierced the corporate veil, ruling that the
new company was created as a sham to reduce the gross profits of the
parent company. The court held that the two companies must be treated
as one to ensure social justice for the workmen.

15. Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

* Facts: The company’s Memorandum of Association (MoA) allowed it to

make and sell railway carriages. However, the directors entered into a
contract with Riche to finance the construction of a railway line in
Belgium.

* Issue: Is a contract valid if it falls outside the objects defined in the

Memorandum?

* Judgment: This established the Doctrine of Ultra Vires. The House of

Lords held that any act outside the MoA is "beyond powers" (ultra vires)
and void. Even if every single shareholder had ratified the contract, it
could not be made legal because the company lacked the capacity to
enter it from the start.

16. Dr. A. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar v. LIC (1963)

* Facts: The directors of an insurance company were authorized by a

shareholder resolution to donate two lakh rupees to a charitable trust. The
company’s objects clause allowed for acts "incidental or conducive" to the
business.

* Issue: Is a charitable donation valid if it has no connection to the

company's specific business objectives?

* Judgment: The Supreme Court held the donation was ultra vires. The
court ruled that "incidental" powers must have a direct connection to the
business. Since the charity did not promote the insurance business, the
directors were personally liable to repay the money to the company.

17. Royal British Bank v. Turquand (1856)

* Facts: The company’s articles allowed the directors to borrow money via
bonds, provided a resolution was passed in a General Meeting. The
directors borrowed money from Turquand but failed to pass the required
resolution. The company later refused to pay, claiming the directors
lacked authority.

* Issue: Are outsiders required to ensure that a company’s internal

procedures have been followed?

* Judgment: Established the Doctrine of Indoor Management (the

"Turquand Rule"). Outsiders dealing with a company are only required to
read the public documents (MoA and AoA). They are entitled to assume
that internal proceedings (like passing a resolution) have been correctly
followed. The bank was entitled to recover the money.

18. Foss v. Harbottle (1843)

 * Facts: Two minority shareholders sued the directors, alleging they had
misapplied and wasted the company’s property. They brought the suit on
behalf of themselves and all other shareholders.

* Issue: Can a minority shareholder sue for a wrong done to the

company?

* Judgment: The court laid down the "Proper Plaintiff Rule." It held that if a
wrong is done to the company, the company is the only "proper plaintiff"
to sue. Since the majority of shareholders could choose to ratify the
directors' actions, the court will generally not interfere in internal
management.

19. Shanti Prasad Jain v. Kalinga Tubes Ltd. (1965)

* Facts: The appellant, a minority shareholder, alleged oppression

because the majority group issued new shares to their friends and
associates to ensure the appellant never gained control, even though a
prior agreement stated shares should be distributed proportionally.

* Issue: What is the legal standard for proving "oppression" under the
Companies Act?

* Judgment: The Supreme Court held that for an act to be "oppressive," it

must be burdensome, harsh, and wrongful. A mere violation of a private
agreement between shareholders that is not part of the company's
Articles does not necessarily constitute oppression. The court found that
the issuance of shares was for the company's need for funds, not just to
spite the minority.