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

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (7) TMI 819

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 0 equity shares issued to the nominees being Indian Nationals in the year 1980, as such issuance is illegal, null and void in the eye of law and also sought alternative reliefs for rectification of share register lying in the name of respondent No. 9, respondent No. 2, respondent No. 5, respondent No. 6, respondent No. 7 and also other reliefs questioning the acts of the company since the year 1980. In furtherance of the same, these petitioners also sought interim reliefs seeking appointment of special officer ; cancellation of the 37,170 shares issued in the year 1980 and subsequent transfer thereto which are more or less the same as prayed in the main reliefs. As the petitioners counsel sought for interim reliefs, this Bench heard the ar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rrying on the business of manufacture and sale of weighing scales and operating the same. This is basically a closely held family company of the Somerville family. The sum and substance of this petition is that the shareholding of the company is not evenly distributed among the sons and their heirs after the demise of the founder John Hutchison Somerville due to the acts of respondents Nos. 2 to 10 which is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners herein. For these reasons, these petitioners assailed the transfer of shares in this company from the year 1980 onwards. Since some of the family members of this company are foreigners, according to Indian law, foreigners are not entitled to hold above 50 per cent. shareholding of the compan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l filed supplementary affidavit on June 23, 2010, alleging that the first respondent-company was closed down so as to get undue advantage by creating third party rights over the tenancy rights of the premises at 12, Gurusaday Road, Kolkata-700 019. The petitioners further stated in their affidavit that respondent No. 2 closed down the business activities of the company stating that it is not economically viable to run this unproductive unit with financial liabilities as enough work orders are not coming to the company. To which the petitioners counsel further stated that this company has been getting work orders from various institution, i.e., Birla Planetarium, West Bengal Surface Transport Corporation Ltd., Manforse Trucks P. Ltd., and f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... their lives with their personal avocations in Thailand, Australia and New Zeeland, have been enjoying the fruits of the company at the efforts of respondent No. 2. Now the company having become economically unviable to run it, respondent No. 2 was given liberty to close it down to avoid burden of the employees and maintenance of the company. The work orders that are shown by the petitioners are indeed given to the Bell Punch (I) P. Ltd., but not to the first respondent-company and all the orders shown by the petitioners are worth only Rs. 3,000 or Rs. 4,000 each. These petitioners are well within the knowledge over the activities of the company till this day, having the first petitioner personally attended many of the meetings held by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... when he was absent, he conceded the acts of the company from time to time ; the same is evident in the correspondence of the first petitioner with the company. Thereby, prima facie, no case is found to pass interim reliefs. As to the fixed assets of the company, on the face of the notice dated April 24, 2010, issued by the company, it is evident that it is not economically viable to run the unit without work orders, thereby the company closed down the unit directing the employees to avail of the benefits of the employees terminated in the company as per law. Since there is no agenda at this stage either to create third party rights or any notice convening any meeting, this Bench is of the view that it cannot be assumed that respondent No. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates