2016 (12) TMI 1495 - Tri - Companies Law

Entitlement to supply of copies of documents - inspection of the documents - qualified person u/s. 163 - Held that - This Petitioner has no shareholding in the company, therefore, he will not get any occasion to attend Annual General Meetings of the company or any of the meeting of the company to question the acts of the company. So this Bench does not see any purpose in granting such a relief to a stranger to the company because by giving a conjoint meaning of the person mentioned in sub-section 2 of Section 163 - member or debenture holder and of any other persons, this Petitioner will not fall under any of the above three classes of persons, therefore, this Petitioner is not entitled to seek this relief u/s. 163. This Bench having noticed that this Petitioner is in the habit of raising frivolous litigation again many of the listed companies either by subscribing one or two shares or under the head of any other person u/s. 163 by asking inspection of the documents from the date of inception of the companies. Knowing fully well, that it will not be possible to provide inspection of the documents from the date of inception, when the company failed to provide inspection or supply of copies, he files Petitions u/s. 163 or sec. 219 of the Companies Act, 1956. If any company says copies are provided as sought by the Petitioner, he will start arguing for exemplary costs for not providing inspection in the period mentioned in the statute. Since this Bench has noticed that he is not a qualified person u/s. 163 to seek inspection, this Bench hereby dismisses all these 62 Petitions by imposing cost of ₹ 1000/- each in every TCP

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to copies of statutory registers and records under Section 163 of the Companies Act, 1956.
2. Jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 163 of the Companies Act, 1956.
3. Maintainability of the petitions filed by the Petitioner.
4. Allegations of the Petitioner being a chronic litigant.
5. Compliance by the Respondent companies with statutory obligations.
6. Imposition of costs for frivolous litigation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Copies of Statutory Registers and Records:
The Petitioner sought copies of the Register of Members and Annual Returns for the years 2008-09 and 2009-10 from the Respondent companies, asserting his right under Section 163 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Petitioner argued that the companies were under a statutory obligation to provide these documents within 10 working days. The Respondents contended that they had already complied with the request by sending the documents on 28.5.2012 and that the Petitioner was not a shareholder in any of the companies.

2. Jurisdiction of NCLT:
The Petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the NCLT to adjudicate the petitions under Section 163, arguing that the powers conferred upon the Company Law Board (CLB) under the Companies Act, 1956 had not been extended to the NCLT under the analogous Section 94 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to decide on acts that happened before the new Act came into force, thus the petitions were maintainable.

3. Maintainability of the Petitions:
The Petitioner’s argument on maintainability was dismissed by the Tribunal, which noted that the petitions were ripe for adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized that the case was ready for oral submissions based on the affidavits and pleadings filed, and it could proceed to decide the case even in the absence of the Petitioner’s arguments.

4. Allegations of Chronic Litigant:
The Respondents accused the Petitioner of being a chronic litigant who habitually filed petitions under Sections 163 and 219 against various companies. The Tribunal noted that the Petitioner had filed 62 petitions against Reliance Industries Ltd. and its subsidiaries, often seeking voluminous documentation from the date of incorporation. The Tribunal observed that the Petitioner’s actions were frivolous and vexatious, aimed at harassing the companies.

5. Compliance by Respondent Companies:
The Respondents argued that they had complied with the statutory requirements by providing the requested documents on 28.5.2012. The Petitioner, however, claimed that the copies were incomplete. The Tribunal found that the Respondents had indeed furnished the documents and that the Petitioner had failed to demonstrate any injury or specific reason for requiring the documents.

6. Imposition of Costs:
The Tribunal concluded that the Petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought under Section 163, as he did not fall under the categories of persons (members, debenture holders, or any other person with an interest in the company) entitled to such documents. The Tribunal dismissed all 62 petitions, imposing a cost of ?1000/- each for consuming the Tribunal's valuable time with frivolous litigation.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the petitions filed by the Petitioner, holding that he was not entitled to the documents under Section 163 of the Companies Act, 1956, and imposed costs for engaging in frivolous litigation. The Tribunal affirmed its jurisdiction to adjudicate the petitions and emphasized that the Respondents had complied with their statutory obligations.