9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2008 - MS. GITA MITTAL, J. Ashish Makhija and Ms. Sanjana Sharma for the Appellant. Joydip Bhattacharya for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. By this appeal, the appellant has assailed the order dated 8-3-2007 passed by the Company Law Board in a petition under section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. Both the parties in the instant case are companies incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. The respondent company claimed to be owner of 7500 equity shares of the appellant company purchased in 1994, bearing the following certificate numbers : "2794, 5134, 6752, 2044, 12683, 8075, 3422, 8070, 8069, 8068, 8071, 8067, 7537, 12760, 12507, 12844, 6292, 2572, 2146, 2811, 11990, 3105, 2029, 2728, 8546, 3945, 6369, 5362, 5361, 20530, 6198, 8086, 12494, 17168, 2281, 2092, 5984, 2033, 3609, 8214, 2422, 2819, 2796, 2788, 2169, 6209, 17601, 12597, 2252, 3420, 2251, 2225, 2458, 6126, 8757, 8205, 6066, 6067, 534, 2299, 6394, 2658, 6070, 2714, 7477, 7478, 7512, 10249, 10250, 10251." By a registered letter dated 5-12-1994, the respondent informed the appellant that these share certificates were either lost/mislodged and therefore the respondent was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the petitioner and against the defendant. ( e )That the entire costs of the suit may be awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the defendant." 5. The appellant contested this petition inter alia taking an objection that the petition was barred by limitation as well as that the same was liable to be rejected on grounds of misjoinder of parties and non-joinder of necessary party. The appellant had taken a specific objection that the shares were presently registered in the name of various shareholders who had not been made a party in the petition. 6. The respondent herein had responded to this objection contending that it was not possessed of the requisite information for impleading these third parties. It was further stated that the respondent had repeatedly requested the appellant and their Registered and Transfer Agent (RTA) to provide the status of the shareholding pertaining to the shares in question including the details of shareholders which the defendant/RTA had not furnished to the petitioner till date. The respondent had also taken a stand that it was the responsibility and duty of the appellant to verify and check the beneficial interest/ownership o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arties, taken by the respondent that the order was passed and that such order was the appropriate order to be passed to ensure ends of justice. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that this order was recorded without giving a hearing to him. It is further submitted that he was taken by surprise inasmuch as there was no application by the respondent herein nor any oral request for furnishing any details. According to learned counsel, the order does not even set out what were the requisite details which were to be furnished by the respondent to the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the direction relates to furnishing details with regard to the particulars of the persons to whom the shares over which the respondent is claiming right, title and interest have been transacted. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 14. Perusal of the order which has been recorded on 8-3-2007 appears to support the grievance made by the appellant. The order does not set out what would constitute requisite details which the appellant herein is required to furnish to the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Code of Civil Procedure, it is open to a civil court to act to implead any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings. Suo motu power is given to the court to add or delete any of the parties at any stage of the proceedings with or without an application of either party on such terms as may appear to the court to be just. The statutory provision mandates that a person whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit is required to be added as a party. Similarly, the name of any party improperly joined whether as a plaintiff or as a defendant, is required to be struck out. 21. I find that sub-section (6) of section 10E of the Companies Act, 1956, provides that the manner in which the Company Law Board would be constituted and its jurisdiction, specifically empowers the Company Law Board to regulate its own procedure. Furthermore sub-section (5) of section 10E mandates that in exercise of its powers and discharge of its functions in the said Act or any other law, the Company Law Board would be guided by the principles of natural justice and shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
