9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Competency of the petition under sections 397, 398, and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 - Validity of settlement through private arbitration in proceedings under sections 397 and 398 of the Act - Effect of withdrawal of some petitioners on the maintainability of the main petition - Allegation of abuse of court process by the remaining petitioner - Jurisdiction of the court to proceed with the main petition despite withdrawals - Offer by respondents to purchase petitioner's shares and its relevance to the case Analysis: The judgment pertains to a petition filed under sections 397, 398, and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956, involving a company and its directors. The petitioners sought relief, including winding up of the company. The petition was contested, and issues were framed. Subsequently, a settlement was reached between some petitioners and respondents, leading to an application for valuation and transfer of shares, which was approved by the court for assessment by an arbitrator. However, one petitioner, not agreeing with the settlement, filed an application challenging the settlement, alleging suppression of company affairs and defalcations. This led to a dispute regarding the validity of the settlement through private arbitration in the context of the Companies Act provisions. The court issued notices and considered the objections raised by the dissenting petitioner regarding the settlement. Following the withdrawal of some petitioners from the main petition, a preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the petition with only one petitioner remaining. The court referred to legal precedent and held that the validity of a petition is to be judged based on the facts at the time of its presentation, and subsequent events do not affect its maintainability, thus rejecting the preliminary objection. The remaining petitioner was accused of abusing the court process by continuing the petition despite others being satisfied with the company's affairs. The respondents offered to purchase the remaining petitioner's shares at a fair value, alleging blackmail. The court, however, found no merit in the abuse of process argument, emphasizing that the main petition sought relief under various sections of the Act, including winding up, and decided to proceed with recording evidence to determine the petition's validity and potential mala fide nature. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of allowing the main petition to proceed despite withdrawals, scheduling further proceedings to record evidence and address related applications on a specified date. The court deferred decisions on other applications for a later date, with no costs awarded in the specific matter concerning the abuse of court process allegation.
|
