9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, unless there are impediments, either legal or factual, which may arise, during the course of the proceedings. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. It is made clear that it would be open to the respondents to move any other application, if they find it necessary, before the Company Law Board, during the pendency of C.P. No. 81 of 2009. - C.R.P. NO. 557 OF 2010 AND M.P. NOS. 1 TO 3 OF 2010 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2010 - M. JAICHANDREN, J. H. Karthik Seshadri for the Petitioner. R. Murari for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. This civil revision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agreement, dated 14-12-2006. Accordingly, 76.64 per cent of the equity stake, held by the respondents, had been transferred to the second and the third appellants. As a result of the transfer of the shares by the respondents to the second and the third appellants, the shareholding of the first respondent in the company had been reduced to 328 shares, which is 0.164 per cent of the number of shares in the company. Thereafter, the second respondent is neither the director, nor a shareholder of the company. 4. It has been further stated that, after having sold their interest in the company, in the month of December, 2006, the respondents have raised a dispute, after a lapse of nearly three years before the Company Law Board, Southern Regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any Law Board, without ascertaining the maintainability of the petition, has permitted the respondents to unnecessarily prolong the proceedings from 10-11-2009. The interim reliefs granted, on 24-9-2009, had also been continued, as the matter had been adjourned on several occasions. Due to the interim order dated 24-9-2009, the business of the company had been brought to a halt. No administrative, financial or business oriented decisions could be taken by the petitioners due to the interim order passed by the Company Law Board. Even the board meetings, shareholders meetings and the annual general body meetings could not be held. 8. While so, the respondents had moved an application in C.A. No. 26 of 2010, for amending the company petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel had further submitted that the respondents had also obtained certain interim orders, by deceit and fraud. In such circumstances, the Company Law Board should take up the company application, in C.A. No. 112 of 2009, filed by the petitioners, with regard to the maintainability of C.P. No. 81 of 2009. As it is clear that, on 14-12-2006, the respondents had transferred a substantial number of shares, in accordance with the shareholder agreement and it had been approved by the board meeting dated 14-12-2006. Thereafter, the respondents were ineligible to file C.P. No. 81 of 2009. As such, C.P. No. 81 of 2009, filed by the respondents, is liable to be dismissed, as it is not maintainable. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, as per the powers vested in it, under section 10E(4C) of the Companies Act, 1956, as held by the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by its order, dated 3-7-2009, made in B. Subba Reddy v. S.S. Organics Ltd. [2009] 151 Comp. Cas. 190 1 . He had also submitted that, unless there is gross injustice committed by the Company Law Board, a civil revision petition, under article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot be maintained, as held in the decisions, in Rana Mukherjee v. Bishwajit Bhattacharya MANU/SC/0558/2001, Ranjit Kumar v. B.V. Deepak MANU/SC/0718/2001 and Mrs. Farhat Sheikh v. Esemen Metalo Chemicals (P.) Ltd. [1996] 87 Comp. Cas. 290 2 (CLB - Delhi). He had also submitted that the issue relating to ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14. Learned counsel had also stated that, unless C.A. No. 112 of 2009, is taken up as a preliminary issue, the petitioners would be put to serious hardship and irreparable loss. Learned counsel for the petitioners had relied on the decision in Rajiv Mehta v. Group-4 Securitas Hindustan (P.) Ltd. [2000] 99 Comp. Cas. 57 2 (CLB - Delhi). 15. Learned counsel had also pointed out that the Company Law Board, having been formed with specific powers to deal with matters relating to companies, which were being adjudicated by this court, earlier, would possess, by necessary implication, similar powers as that of this court, including certain residuary powers. Though the Company Law Board is not bound by the procedures contemplated unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
