9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was justified to call an EOGM for voluntary Winding up of the R-1 Company. No reason whatsoever given referring to this admitted position on record with respect to the shareholding of the Appellants/Original Petitioners. There is force in the contentions so raised. The Board has not at all dealt with the aspect, which, goes to the root of the matter while deciding the maintainability of the Company Petition. Another factor, though recorded by the Board, yet failed to consider that Bipin C. Mehta, who admittedly expired after filing of the Company Petition, had transferred his shares to these legal heirs, just cannot be overlooked 30% overall shareholding of the Appellants/Original Petitioners. The situation was totally different on the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hird party rights and/or interests in respect of the shares held by them in the Respondent No. 1 Company to any person other than Appellants. Company Application is accordingly disposed of." 3. The Company Appeal is listed today for final hearing. Even today, none appeared for the contesting Respondents, though served. 4. The Appellants/Original Petitioners are the registered holder and owner of 3,300 shares of Rs. 100/- each. The Appellants/Original Petitioners together hold about 30% equity shares, more than 10% of the total shareholding of and in the Company. It appears that the Appellants/Original Petitioners and the contesting Respondents are the family members and a dispute arose amongst them. A Company Petition was filed by invok ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aforesaid unambiguous provisions of the Act, Petitioners are required to satisfy the CLB that petitioner(s) individually or together hold the requisite percentage of shares in the Company. It is the requirement of the law that Petition under Sections 397 and 398 has to accompany documentary evidence in proof of eligibility and status of petitioner(s) that the voting power held by each of them is as per provisions of Section 399 of the Act. In other words Petitioner(s) has/have to meet the requirement u/s 399 either in terms of the number/percentage of shares or in terms of number of shareholders. In the present case the petitioners do not have the requisite qualification u/s 399 of the Act to maintain the Company Petition u/s. 397/398 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oked 30% overall shareholding of the Appellants/Original Petitioners. The situation was totally different on the date of filing of the Company Petition, specially in view of the admitted position so recorded. The Board ought to have considered the date of filing of the Petition, as well as the admissions so given by the contesting Respondents, before rejecting the Company Petition in such a fashion on the ground of maintainability. The order is contrary to the law and the record. They are awaiting transfer order to be passed by the majority. 9. In my view, this rejection itself goes to the root of the matter as ultimately that resulted into dismissal of the Company Petition even on merits. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, I a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
