Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2021 (2) TMI Tri This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2021 (2) TMI 308 - Tri - Companies Law


Issues:
1. Application filed seeking direction to maintain 'STATUS QUO' regarding a company's constitution and activities.
2. Allegations of misappropriation of funds and unilateral actions affecting company's operations.
3. Request for appointment of an Administrator and external auditor to oversee company's affairs.
4. Dispute regarding shareholding and attempts to remove a director.
5. Failure to respond to notices and emails, leading to a request for interim orders.

Analysis:
1. The application (I.A.No. 269/2020) sought a direction under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016, to maintain 'STATUS QUO' concerning the constitution and activities of a company. The applicant alleged that since a specific incident in 2019, the company's operations had come to a standstill, with financial irregularities and key decisions being made without proper authorization.

2. The main company petition (C.P. No. 82/BB/2020) involved serious allegations of misappropriation of funds, diversion of money without board resolution, and attempts to remove a director. The petitioner requested the appointment of an Administrator to oversee the company's functioning, conduct an audit, and potentially wind up the company if necessary.

3. The applicant and respondents were involved in a dispute regarding shareholding and attempts to remove a director from the company. The petitioner, holding a significant percentage of shares, sought protection from unilateral actions affecting her position and rights within the company.

4. The tribunal noted that the respondents had not appeared despite notices being served, leading to a request for interim orders to address the ongoing issues. The tribunal had previously issued interim orders to prevent certain actions until a proper hearing could take place.

5. Ultimately, the tribunal disposed of the application by directing the respondents not to force the applicant to accept a Right Issue until further orders. The communication of this order to the respondents was permitted, emphasizing the need for compliance with legal procedures and protection of the applicant's rights within the company.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates