Whether the shareholders can among themselves enter into an agreement that is contrary to or inconsistent with the Articles of Association of the company?
The agreement, imposes additional restrictions on the member’s right to transfer the shares which are contrary to the provisions of the Article. They are, therefore, not binding either on the shareholders or on the company.
Whether the enforceability of share transfer restrictions has long been vexed?
Section 58(2) of the Companies Act, 2013.
Whether clause 7 of the Protocol Agreement impinged on the free transferability of shares of a public company as contemplated under Section 111 A of the Companies Act, 1956 or the erstwhile Section 22 A (2) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956?
Shares of a company are movable property and the right of the shareholder to deal with his shares or enter into contracts in relation thereto and have a pre-emption clause is nothing but a shareholder exercising his property rights.
Whether the provisions of an agreement, that are not inconsistent with the act, but are also not part of the AoA, can be said to be applicable?
The legal position is that where the AOA is silent on the existence of an affirmation vote, it will not be possible to hold that a clause in an agreement between the shareholders would be binding without being incorporated in the AOA.
Whether the judgment of the Trial Court which did not contain the witnesses examined at trial, arguments by the prosecution and defence before the Court valid?
Section 354(1) in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Whether noncompliance with s. 235(2) is merely an irregularity which can be cured by s. 465 or it is an illegality which vitiates the sentence?
Section 235(2) is clear and explicit in its wording such that, when a judgment is rendered convicting the accused, he is, at that stage, to be given an opportunity to be heard in regard to the sentence and it is only after hearing him that the court can proceed to pass the sentence.
What is the stage at which power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised?
Whether the word “evidence” used in Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure could only mean evidence tested by cross-examination or the court can exercise the power under the said provision even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned?
Whether the word “evidence” used in Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the evidence collected during investigation or the word “evidence” is limited to the evidence recorded during trial?
What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure to arraign an accused? Whether the power under Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood convicted?
Does the power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure extend to persons not named in the FIR or named in the FIR but not charged or who have been discharged?
The word “inquiry” in section 319 therefore doesn’t mean an inquiry related to investigation but is an inquiry after the case is brought to the notice of the court on the filing of the charge-sheet. The court can thereafter proceed to make inquiries and it is for this reason that an inquiry has been given to mean something other than the actual trial.
Whether or not a bail can be granted to the accused at the pre-trial stage or post-conviction stage by statutory appeal?
The vital considerations are :-(a) The nature of charge, the nature of the evidence and, the punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted, or conviction is confirmed. When the crime charged is of the highest magnitude and the punishment of it assigned by law is of extreme severity, the court may reasonably presume, some evidence warranting that no amount of bail would secure the presence of the convict at the stage of judgment, should he be enlarged; (b) whether the cause of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the court to be freed for the time being (c) Antecedents of the man and socio-geographical circumstances; and whether the petitoner's record shows him to be a habitual offender; (d) when a person, charged with a grave offence has been acquitted at a stage, the intermediate acquittal has pertinence to a bail plea when the appeal before this court pends. The ground for denial of provisional release, becomes weaker when a fair finding of innocence has been recorded by one court; (e) Whether the accused's safety may be more in prison than in the vengeful village where feuds have provoked the violent offence and (f) the period in prison already spent and the prospect of delay in the appeal being heard and disposed of.
Whether the question of cancellation of bail is different from admission to bail under Section 439(1)?
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.
A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody.
Section 439 empowers the Session Court or High Court to grant bail if accused is in custody.
What all factors should be taken into consideration while granting the bail to an accused?
Bail is the rule and committal to jail is the exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21. When there is a delay in trial, bail should be granted to the accused.