9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, abated at the death of the original petitioner? 2. Whether the order of transposition could be passed in relation to those proceedings? Analysis: The judgment pertains to a case where the original petitioner, Sri Kishan Talwar, had initiated proceedings under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. Following his demise, his widow, Shrimati Sharda Talwar, sought to be transposed as the petitioner. The company contended that the petition abated with the petitioner's death and only the legal representatives could continue the proceedings. The company also argued that Shrimati Sharda Talwar did not have the requisite shareholder consent as per section 399 of the Act. The court examined whether the petition abated upon the petitioner's death and if the transposition of Shrimati Sharda Talwar was valid. The court analyzed the provisions of sections 397, 398, and 399 of the Companies Act, 1956. It was highlighted that even a single member, with consent from others holding one-tenth of the share capital, could make an application under section 399. The court considered the concept of constructive petitioners and the representation of consenting shareholders in such petitions. It drew parallels from cases related to representative suits under the Code of Civil Procedure to determine the applicability of the principle in the present case. The court referred to various legal precedents to establish that proceedings in representative suits do not abate upon the death of the original petitioner. It emphasized that the proceedings under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act were brought for the benefit of all consenting members, not solely for the individual petitioner. Therefore, the court held that Shrimati Sharda Talwar was constructively a petitioner and entitled to continue the proceedings without the need to bring on record the ordinary legal representatives of the deceased petitioner. Regarding the company's contention that the transposed petitioner must fulfill the requirements of section 399, the court relied on a Supreme Court decision to assert that the petition's validity is judged based on the facts at the time of its presentation. The court concluded that since Shrimati Sharda Talwar was constructively a petitioner from the beginning, she was not required to meet the same conditions as a new petitioner. Therefore, the court affirmed the single judge's decision, dismissing the company's appeal and leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
|
