9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (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 Light Credit (India) Ltd, the appellant herein, as a party respondent. 3. The primary grievance of the appellant is that both these applications have been allowed by the CLB without any notice to the appellant, thereby denying the appellant an opportunity to oppose the said applications. The other grievance of the appellant is that while passing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent 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 amendment being allowed, that the appellant herein was impleaded as a party respondent since it is the transfer of 42,57,500 equity shares of M/s. Sunair Hotels Ltd. in its favour, which was sought to be assailed. The said challenge could not have been made behind the back of the appellant and the appellant is a necessary party in the company petition af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mited. 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 challenge and, at the initial stage itself, they could have impleaded the appellant herein, i.e. Star Light Credit (India) Ltd, and the appellant could not have raised a grievance that its impleadment in the company petition could not have been made without putting it to notice, or granting it a hearing. However, the appellant would have had the right to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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 04.11.2010 at the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of M/s Sunair Hotels Limited. 11. It goes without saying that it shall be open for the appellant and the other respondents in the company petition to meet the case of the petitioners in the company petition, and only thereafter the CLB shall arrive at its definite findings of fact. 12. So far as the grievance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
