MCQs for CA Final Exam - CAFinal[dot]Org: Complete Learning Portal for CA Final Students

Quiz

Q1. Application to tribunal can be filed if it’s likely that affair of the company will be conducted in a manner prejudicial to

its interest

its members

Any of above.

None of above

Q2. Shareholders of Lucky Private Limited had entered into transactions which could not be termed as fair dealing and were against the interest of the company. The minority shareholders lacked confidence in the transactions entered by majority and thus filed a petition for oppression. What is a valid ground for petition?

Lack of Confidence of the minority in majority does not prove oppression

Must involve lack of probity or fair dealing to members in the matter of proprietary rights as a shareholder.

There must be continuous acts on the part of the majority shareholders, Continuing upto the date of petition.

All the above

Q3. What are the rights of the minority shareholders under the act

Class Action Suits

Application for NCLT

Appointment of Small Shareholders

All of above

Q4. PQR Private Ltd had failed to allot shares against the application money raised by them for issue of shares. The names of the persons who had paid money for such shares are not in the register of members of the company. Can this stop the persons to file an application for oppression and mismanagement against the company?

The persons are assumed to be shareholders even though their names are not in the register of members since they have paid application money for shares and are entitled to allotment of shares by the company. Hence they can file a petition against oppression and mismanagement

Share Certificates being a conclusive evidence of their membership, since they do not possess the share certificates they are not the members of the company and hence not entitled to file a petition against the company

The names of such persons is not in the register of members and hence they cannot file a petition against the company since they are not the members of the company

None of the Above

Q5. X and Y majority shareholders of the company opposed the special resolution for increase in capital since they did not have enough funds and feared that Z, the chairman of the company would corner the shares and become predominant in the company. They proposed for dilution of control of the company by issuing shares to persons who are shareholders in the company. Z filed a petition complaining of oppression saying that X and Y wanted to throw him out to bring change in management. What should be the logical conclusion of the petition?

Seeking change of management does not, prima facie tantamount to oppression

In terms of the provisions of the act, it is permissible for a company to offer shares to persons who are not the existing shareholders by passing a special resolution. This requirement has been complied with in the present case; there is no illegality in the action of the company.

Petition filed by Z is tenable if it is proved that further issue of non- shareholders was to benefit one group to the detriment of the other.

All of the above

Q6. In the famous case of McDonalds (McDonalds India Private Limited) and Connaught Plaza Restaurants Private limited, whether an arbitration Clause in the Joint Venture agreement would deprive NCLT to establish its jurisdiction to hear disputes regarding oppression and mismanagement?

Private agreements like JVA lie beyond the scope of this Section

Since JVA is incorporated in the AOA of the company and thus any malafide actions or an act of oppression would be considered as oppression against the shareholders and against the interest of the company. Thus NCLT has the right to pass the order even though the dispute was arising out of private agreement

Both (a) & (b)

None of (a) & (b).

Q7. The number of depositors who may file application us 245 shall not be less than

100 or 10% whichever is less

200 or 10% whichever is higher

50 or 20% whichever is higher

150 or 10% whichever is less

Q8. If the members are filing application by way of class action us 245 application shall not be less than

1\8th of total number

1\10th of total number

1\5th of total number

1\4th of total

Q9. Provision of Compromise and Mismanagement dealing with Companies act 1956 was section

336

337

332

335

Q10. XYZ Ltd. is a company having 8 shareholders. Can members holding less that 1/10 of the share capital of the company apply to NCLT for relief against oppression and mismanagement?

Yes, if a genuine application to NCLT is made for the same and approved by NCLT

Yes minority shares have right to file a petition to NCLT

None of the above.

Q11. Class action can be initiated us

245

240

242

241

Q12. The shareholders holding 15% of the voting rights of ABC Private Limited filed an application to NCLT alleging various acts of fraud and mismanagement done by Mr. Roy, the ex-managing Director of the company. The acts of mismanagement were done 8 years ago and Mr. Roy was removed after the incident came to light. Whether the case for mismanagement done in past be filed now?

Yes the case can be filed to NCLT even for an act of mismanagement in the past

Yes the case can be filed but not to NCLT but to CLB.

No, the Case cannot be referred to NCLT for an act of mismanagement in the past.

No, the Case cannot be filed to both NCLT and CLB

Q13. Relief shall be given by tribunal for any affairs conducted in manner following except:

prejudicial to public interest

prejudicial o oppressive to any member

prejudicial to interest of co

Acted in interest of company

Q14. The company contravenes section 242(5)i.e. alteration to MOA AOA shall be punished with

Fine 500000 - 1000000

Fine 200000- 500000

Fine 100000- 300000

Fine 25000-100000

Q15. Ajay Private Limited is a holding company of Vijay Private Limited pursuant to transfer of shares. Vijay Private Limited rejected to enter the name of Ajay Private Limited in the register of members on unjustifiable grounds and without sufficient cause. Whether the petition filed by the holding company Ajay Private Limited will be maintainable under this section?

Q16. ABC Private Limited has two group of shareholders, one foreign shareholders holding 60% and one Indian shareholders holding 40% of the shares of the company. Both the groups have equal managerial powers. The relationship between two groups could not last longer and disputes arose due to deadlock in management. The Indian Group complained to NCLT for action against the foreign group for oppression. Whether the case amounts to oppression or winding up under the Act?

Both the groups being equally strong one is unable to oppress the another, hence there is deadlock in management but not oppression

Foreign group can be said to be oppressive over the Indian group

The above case is not tenable under the provisions of oppression

Both (a) & (C)

Q17. Does the following acts by the board amount to oppression? (i) Denial of inspection of books of accounts. (ii) Not holding board meeting in timely manner. (iii) Non declaration of dividend (iv) Company is incurring looses for last 3 years

(i), (ii), (iii) - Amount to oppression

(i), (ii)- amount to oppression

iii), (iv)- Amount to oppression

None of the above is oppression

Q18. In which of the following cases tribunal shall take prior permission of the party concerned before setting aside or terminating the order

removal of managing director or any director

recovery of undue gains made by any managing director or director during his appointment

manner in which MD or manager may be appointed subsequent to an order removing the existing MD or manager or manager of the company.

all of the above

Q19. Contravention of section 245 by company shall be penalized

200000-700000

500000-1000000

500000-2500000

100000-300000

Q20. Power to tribunal for passing order is us

240

242

246

245