9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 06.01.2011, dismissed the company petition on a preliminary issue of maintainability of the company petition. Holding that, the petition was not maintainable, inasmuch as it found that the petitioner did not qualify for relief either under Section 111 or for an order under Section 402 on the premises as available under Section 397 or 398 of the Act. For the reason that, the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite qualification of holding a minimum of 10% of the shareholding of the company in terms of Section 399 of the Act, the company petition came to be dismissed. 3. It is aggrieved by this order, the present appeal. 4. The appeal had been admitted to examine the following question of law: "Whether the respondent-company is ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition as not tenable by taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsel of the respondent-company before it, to the effect that in view of the stand taken by the petitioner in original suit No. 870/2003, before the City Civil Court, the company petitioner was not entitled for claiming relief under Section 111, as the stand by the company petitioner was that he was not a shareholder on his own. 11. The pleading before the Civil Court was that, the company petition was not tenable on the ground that there is neither the factual provision nor the legal provision. 12. The company petitioner in fact had sought for rectifying the Register to depict his name as shareholder of 35 number of shares as he has already contributed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany is ready to recognize the appellant as shareholder of 35 number of shares and shall show this portion in the Register of the company. But the appellant cannot at the same time blow hot and cold by seeking the entire amount invested in the company in terms of the agreement by getting the shares allotted to him and he cannot have both shares and the money and therefore urges that the order of the Company Law Court in dismissing the company petition on the preliminary issue is justified, and there is no need for alteration or interference with that order in this appeal. 15. However, Mr. Albal submits that the company is ready and willing to rectify the Register. In fact, the appellant has also acted as a Director of the company earlier, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
