9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny Petition No. 46/2008 before the Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench, Chennai. - CO. APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2011 - - - Dated:- 12-4-2012 - D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR AND K. GOVINDARAJULU, JJ. B.C. Thiruvengadam for the Appellant. A. Murali J. Sagar, C.K. Nandakumar, Smt. Nalina Mayegowda, Rayappa and G.L. Vishwanath for the Respondent. JUDGMENT D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. - This appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act is directed against the order dated 30.9.2011 passed on Company Application No. 49/2011, by the Company Law Board, Chennai Bench, Chennai, (copy produced as Annexure A1 to the petition) in pending company petition 46/2008 before the Board, rejecting the application that had been filed by the 2nd Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ected in limine by Company Law Board and the present appellants had approached this court by filing a like appeal in Company Appeal No. 7/2011 and the appeal had come to be allowed as per the judgment dated 4.07.2011, after issue of notice to respondents. 5. In terms of this judgment this court remanded the matter to the Company Law Board for examination of the application afresh and after issue of notice to the proposed respondents. 6. Application was opposed by the proposed respondent and the Company Law Board on examination and after hearing counsel appearing for the 2nd petitioner-company, which stand was supported by the 1st company petitioner but opposed by proposed respondents, rejected the application for impleadment as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with notice, served and is represented by counsel Smt. Nalina Myagowda. Submissions on behalf of 15th respondent is that no funds had ever been transferred from the 1st respondent-company to the company proposed to be added as party to the main petition before the Company Law Board; that the proposed respondent has nothing to do with the affairs of the 1st respondent-company and therefore, is not a necessary party. 13. However, Sri Tiruvengadam, learned counsel for the appellant submits that some of the promoters of the 1st respondent-company and the 15th respondent-company are common; that some transfer of assets have taken place between the companies. This submission is very much contested by the learned counsel for all the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
