9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the year 1990 by the appellant herein A.P. Jain alleging oppression and mismanagement which was numbered as CP 174/1990. The matter remained pending in this Court and on 10th September, 1996, a prayer was made on account of the change of jurisdiction pursuant to the 1988 amendment in the Companies Act which came into force with effect from 31-5-1991. By the said amendment, the petitions under sections 397 and 398 relating to oppression and mismanagement under Chapter VI were required to be heard by the Company Law Board. The proceedings in this Court were transferred to Company Law Board on 10th September, 1996 by the following order: "Counsel for the petitioners prays for leave to withdraw this petition with liberty to move the Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ( b )Upon withdrawal of the petition from the High Court and refiling it in Company Law Board, the Company Law Board was not dealing with the matter pending in High Court and consequently there was no violation of section 68 of the Companies Amendment Act, 1998. 5. The entire portion of the judgment which is against the appellant is contained in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 and reads as follows: "17. Shri Dhawan gave us comparative statement of the allegations in both the petitions, from which it is seen that practically all the allegations in the present petition are similar to the ones in the earlier petitions, save for some changes in the language and figures. Thus taking into consideration the contents of this petition, comparing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell in time before the High Court. But having withdrawn a long pending matter from the High Court where in all probability, the matter could have ended in the near future, the petitioner cannot have the excuse that he had been vigilant in protecting his interest as a shareholder. We are coming to this conclusion only on comparing the various allegations in the earlier petition and this petition and filing that except for some marginal changes in language or figures, the allegations in the petition are practically the same as in the earlier petition and the present petition is nothing but repetition of the earlier petition. Further, on the argument of Shri Chowdhary that the effects of the alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement committ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany Law Board that the period of pendency of the matter before this Court amounts to laches attributable to the petitioner/appellant is wholly erroneous and indeed uncalled for and cannot be sustained at all. 7. Furthermore, in spite of the finding that limitation was not applicable, the Company Law Board nevertheless in the concluding paragraph 19 recorded that the petition suffers gravely on the ground on limitation. 8. An even more startling facet of the judgment of the Company Law Board is its finding that the averments in the petition before the High Court and the Company Law Board in the refiled petition were practically the same and hence the petitioner (appellant) was not vigilant in protecting his interest as a sharehold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
