2002 (8) TMI 576 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Invocation of sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Prayers in the main petition for various directions.
3. Dismissal of the petition by Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.
4. Application for deposit of license fee.
5. Interpretation of previous court orders regarding the relationship between parties.
6. Application's maintainability and justification of public time expended.
7. Applications under rule 9 of the Company Court Rules and Order VI rule 17 for condonation of delay and amendment.

Analysis:

1. The judgment pertains to an application filed invoking sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioners sought various directions, including active participation in the company's affairs, amendment of articles, appointment of directors, and inspection of records. The Respondents were sons of the deceased Petitioners, not originally party to the petition.

2. The main petition included prayers for active participation in the company's affairs, removal of a respondent from Chairmanship, appointment of a new Chairman, co-option of a petitioner as an additional director, appointment of a Chartered Accountant for audit, inspection of books, and other directions deemed fit by the Court.

3. Dr. M.K. Sharma, J., dismissed the petition as not pressed, with no substitution of the petitioner allowed. Subsequent applications and contempt petitions were also dismissed. Another application was allowed for the release of deposited amounts in favor of one of the Petitioners.

4. An application was made for the deposit of license fees from alleged licensees of the company's premises. The Court noted a discrepancy in the relationship between the parties, with the possibility of transitioning from licensees to tenants, subject to a separate civil dispute.

5. The interpretation of previous court orders regarding the relationship between the parties was crucial. The Court emphasized that the dispute initially raised did not involve the current applicants, and the relief sought now was not connected to the original petition's purpose.

6. The Court found the application not maintainable, expressing dissatisfaction with the public time expended on the case. The application was dismissed with costs imposed, to be deposited with the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.

7. Additionally, the judgment addressed applications under rule 9 of the Company Court Rules and Order VI rule 17 for condonation of delay and amendment, which were allowed by the Court.