9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany to take back his shares. Impugned Petition did not make much headway before the Company Law Board for want of company petitioner having commensurate qualification and that being the factual position and not much in dispute, we do not find any occasion to interfere with the order of the Company Law Board dismissing the company petition on preliminary issue. - COMPA NO. 3 OF 2011 - - - Dated:- 7-6-2012 - D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR AND B. MANOHAR, JJ. Vijay Kumar and A. Murali for the Appellant. Ananth Venkat Albal and Smt. Yashodha Rao for the Respondent. JUDGMENT D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J. This is an appeal under Section - 10F of the Companies Act, by a person who was before the Company Law Board, Additional Principal Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Misc. Civl. No. 5824/2011 for temporary injunction and Misc. Civl. 5825/2011 for stay. 6. Shri S. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that having regard to the nature of the order passed by the Company Law Board and the petition having been dismissed on a preliminary issue, the matter has to be remanded and there is no need for filing paper book and sought for dispensation of the filing of the paper book. 7. Filing of paper book is dispensed at the risk and cost of the appellant. 8. We notice that the prayer sought in Misc. Civil No. 5823/2011 for direction, is virtually the main prayer as is sought in the appeal. 9. We have heard Shri Vijay Kumar learned counsel for the appellant, the second r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany Law Board is not tenable and is to be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Company Law Board for fresh consideration. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Ananth Venkat Albal, second respondent appearing in person submits that it is only the conduct of the appellant which has come in the way of the company allotting or recognizing him as holder of 35 number of shares and that there was in fact an agreement amongst shareholders for allotting that number of shares in view of the contribution made by the appellant to the company, that when the appellant wanted to get back his amount in lieu of the shares, the question of allotting or showing him as holder of 35 number of shares does not arise. The agreement is not operationalised or give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shareholders is 500 in number. As submitted by Mr. Albal, 35 number of shares does not qualify for maintaining a petition under Section 397 or 398 of Act. 17. As to whether the extent of investment made by the appellant qualifies him for more than 35 number of shares or if 35 number of shares are allotted to him he is still entitled for return of any further amount is not a matter which is neither the subject matter of the company petition nor could be gone into in this appeal and is a disputed aspect. 18. But unfortunately for the appellant, his petition did not make much headway before the Company Law Board for want of company petitioner having commensurate qualification and that being the factual position and not much in dispute, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
