9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 910X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n DPSC Ltd., for appointment of receiver on the flats owned by respondent No. 2 and other interim reliefs which are just and fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. The case of the applicants is that respondent No. 1 company holds 13,36,220 shares in DPSC Ltd. Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 formed into a Trust, viz., Descon Shareholders Trust on April 15, 2002, ever since these directors respondents Nos. 2 to 6 have been running respondent No. 1 company without putting the affairs of the company to the notice of the shareholders. In the process, respondent No. 2 appropriated a flat property located at 66, Jodhpur Park, Kolkata-700 068, of the company at under value. Thereafter, he has been from time to time stripping off the company s property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny and its shareholders, sought a restraint order from selling the shareholding of this company in DPSC Ltd., to anybody. 4. Whereas the respondents counsel has submitted that this company purchased these shares in DPSC Ltd., for Rs. 338 per share. The respondents counsel further submitted that the flats that were purchased by respondent No. 2 from respondent No. 1 took place way back in the year 2004, these petitioners all along till the filing of this petition never raised objection in any of the following annual general body meeting from the year 2004. The respondents further submitted that two flats that were purchased by respondent No. 2 from respondent No. 1, were indeed purchased for an amount of Rs. 43 lakhs thereafter they were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40 Comp. Cas. 119 (Cal.) to say that a director merely making acquisitions or earnings will not to be considered as oppression and mismanagement unless and until it is proved. 6. On these points, the petitioners counsel and respondents counsel advanced their arguments. 7. Now the short point to be decided in this case is whether the selling of the first respondent s stake in DPSC Ltd., at Rs. 710 per share is prejudicial to the interest of the company or not. 8. Though the petitioners and the persons who had given consent in writing are more than 100 in number, their shareholding in the company is roughly around 4.73 per cent. Though the petitioners canvassed that respondents Nos. 2 to 6 are siphoning off the funds of the company, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tect the interest of the minority group. This power is vested with the Company Law Board or with any other court to protect the interest of each member of the company so as to see that they do not suffer from the doctrine of corporate democracy. 11. Though the act of selling shares of DESCON at this juncture cannot be considered as oppressive, the minority shareholders, i.e., the interest of the petitioners and the persons who had given consent in writing is involved in the money that come from that sale, this Bench is under an obligation to protect their interest as well. The main petition in this case not having been decided either way, if the company, i.e., the directors of the company, against whom allegations are made, are given free ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
