9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be allowed to act to the prejudice or detrimental to the interest of the Company of which himself or herself is a shareholder. An innocuous order of this nature can never be said to be giving raise to a cause of action or can the appellant be said to be aggrieved by such an order warranting examination of merits of such an order in an appeal under section 10F of the Act. Appeal has absolutely no merits - COMPANY APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2009 AND MISC. CIVIL NOS. 21244 AND 21428 OF 2009 - - - Dated:- 29-1-2010 - D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR AND N. ANANDA, JJ. S.S. Naganand and Nandish Patel for the Appellant. Vijay Desai for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. This appeal purporting to be under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 ( th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erein) who is a shareholder of the Company holding 49 per cent of the shares, whereas other 51 per cent of the shares of the Company is held by the first and second appellants put together who are foreign companies. 6. In this appeal, the Company is arraigned as the second respondent, which was the first respondent in the Company Petition. The appellants figured as respondents 2 and 3 in the Company Petition. 7. The operative portion of the order passed by the Company Law Board on 8-5-2009, produced as Annexure J , to the Memorandum of appeal, is as under: "( a )The Respondents shall maintain the status quo in respect of shareholding pattern of the Company as of today ( i.e., 8-5-2009); ( b )The Respondents shall not in any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the appellants under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and in fact, the present appellant had succeeded in that appeal in terms of the orders passed by this Court on 18-12-2009 and the matter was remanded to the Company Law Board for re-examination of the application under section 8, etc., and such a situation as to whether the Appeal No. 15 of 2009, was one filed under section 37 or an appeal under section 10F of the Act, does not arise in this appeal, but it was peculiar to the facts and circumstances of Company Appeal No. 15 of 2009 and the maintainability of the present appeal does not admit any ambiguity or doubt, we are prima facie, of the view that the appeal under section 10F of the Companies Act can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbarking on such acts, not permitted in law, it cannot be characterised in law to be an order prejudicial to the interest of the appellants or to the Company. 15. It does not require any authority or wisdom to say that no shareholder of a Company should be allowed to act to the prejudice or detrimental to the interest of the Company of which himself or herself is a shareholder. An innocuous order of this nature can never be said to be giving raise to a cause of action or can the appellant be said to be aggrieved by such an order warranting examination of merits of such an order in an appeal under section 10F of the Act. Appeal has absolutely no merits. 16. Sri Vijay Desai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
