9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER Caveat No. 1171/2011 1. Since the caveator has put in appearance, the caveat stands discharged. Co.A.(SB) 98/2011 Co. Appl. Nos. 2542-43/2011 1.1 The appellant-M/s Star Light Credit (India) Ltd., in this appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956, assails the order dated 29.11.2011 passed by the Company Law Board (CLB) in C.A. Nos. 747/2010 and 748/2010 in Co. Pet. No. 35/ND/2010 pending before it. 2. By the impugned order, the CLB has allowed the aforesaid two applications. Whereas C.A. No. 747/2010 had been preferred by the petitioners before the CLB to seek amendment of their company petition under Sections 397 398 of the Companies Act, C.A. No. 748/2010 had been preferred by them to implead M/s Star Lig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of M/s. Sunair Hotels Ltd. held by petitioner No. 13, i.e. International Commenter Limited (ICL) before the CLB in favour of the appellant herein, i.e. M/s Star Light Credit (India) Ltd. The petitioners before the CLB had also sought to assail that the transfer of 44,800 equity shares of M/s. Sunair Hotels Limited held by petitioner No. 14 to respondent No. 2 in the company petition. The ground of challenge was that these transfers had been done without following the due procedure of law. 6. It is argued that the said amendment application had been opposed by the existing respondents in the company petition. However, since the CLB found merit in the said application, the amendment was allowed. It was only consequential to the said amendm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng in M/s Sunair Hotels Limited, in favour of the appellant herein, i.e. Star Light Credit (India) Ltd. and in favour of respondent No. 2 before the CLB respectively. According to the petitioners before the CLB, said transfers were illegal. The petitioners before the CLB were entitled to assail the said transfers of the shares of M/s Sunair Hotels Limited. The said challenge could have been raised in the already filed company petition under Sections 397 398 of the Companies Act in relation to the affairs of M/s Sunair Hotels Limited, or in an independent proceeding. If the said petitioners before the CLB had assailed the said transfers in the originally filed company petition, they could not have been precluded from raising the said chall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P-13 and P-14 in R-1 to Star Light and R-2 respectively could only be alleged as an act of oppression in P-13 P-14 Companies by a separate Company Petition as it relates to the affairs of P-13 P-14 companies only." 10. The findings of the CLB are based on the prima-facie evaluation of the case, and the CLB has not returned any definite findings of fact to the effect that the petitioners in the company petition were not aware of the transfer of the shareholding of M/s Sunair Hotels Limited, inter alia, in favour of the appellant herein on the date of filing of the company petition, i.e. 03.03.2010. The CLB has taken note of the fact that, according to the petitioners in the company petition, they learnt about the transfer only on 04.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
