9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is allowed. The name of respondent No. 1 company M/s. Kayesess Constructions (P.) Ltd., is ordered to be restored in the register of respondent No. 4, i.e., the Registrar of Companies with immediate effect. - COMPANY PETITION NO. 182 OF 2010 - - - Dated:- 17-2-2011 - A.S. PACHHAPURE J. K. Jayaram for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has sought for the restoration of the name of respondent No. 1 company on the register of respondent No. 4. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under : Respondent No. 1 company is a private limited company having its registered office at Malleswaram, Bangalore and under the memorandum and articles of association, it is the main object of the company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land owner subsequently through his GPA holder, respondent No. 2 sold an area of 186 ft. x 50 ft. in S. No. 190 of the said village under the registered sale deed dated 22-4-1991. The residential sites were formed in the land acquired by respondent No. 1 and amongst the 9 sites formed in the said land, the petitioner purchased the site at S. No. 4 in the petition under the sale deed dated 20-2-1995, for a consideration of Rs. 3,50,000 on payment of the stamp duty of Rs. 49,040. The copies of the sale deeds executed by the company in favour of different persons related to the petitioner have been produced by the petitioners at annexures G1 to G8. 6. In the registered partition dated 24-1-2007, amongst the family members of the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 against the State of Karnataka and the officers of the Bangalore Development Authority seeking declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated acquiring the lands bearing S. No. 172 as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs. The said suit also came to be dismissed after hearing the parties. 9. The petitioner was unaware of the acquisition proceedings initiated by the Bangalore Development Authority and respondent No. 1 never brought to the notice of the petitioner about the said acquisition. In the circumstances, it is claimed by the petitioner that the directors of respondent No. 1 company induced the petitioner to purchase the property by fraud and misrepresentation by concealing the fact of acquisition. 10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as "the Act" for short). So also, it is the contention that the share capital of the company is less than Rs. 1 lakh and therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition. On these grounds, he has sought for the dismissal of the petition. 13. Respondent No. 4 has not objected to the grant of the relief subject to certain conditions. 14. In the circumstances, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. 15. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition on the ground that he is neither a member nor creditor as provided in sub-section (6) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concerned, though in the cause title it is so mentioned, the fact that the company was represented by the directors has been explained in paragraph 3 of the plaint wherein it is stated that respondent No. 1 company is represented by its directors respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Hence, even the contention, that there is defective cause title is not sufficient to discard the claim made by the petitioner. 18. Though the word "Tribunal" has been used under section 560(6) of the Act, it is relevant to note that the substitution is made by an amendment to the provisions of the Act (amended by Act No. 11 of 2003), but no notification has been yet issued by the Government giving effect to the amended provisions. Thereby, though in the provisions of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
