Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (12) TMI 228

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... osal of a civil suit (CO No.123/2012), which has been filed by the appellants Nos.2 & 3 in the Court of District Judge, Hanumangarh. 2. In brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter are as follows: The respondents herein have filed the said company petition [No.129(ND)/2011] under Sections 397, 398 and 403 of the Act of 1956, alleging oppression and mismanagement in respect of the affairs of the appellant No.1 company. The appellants have filed a reply to the said company petition alleging, inter alia, that the petitioners (respondents herein) have not approached the Board with clean hands and have deliberately concealed the fact of execution of a family settlement dated 22.09.2009. It has also been contended that in view of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 02.10.2009 to the banker of the appellant company, asking to take the action for separation of securities and guarantees in accordance with the settlement. Further, according to the appellants, the appellant No.2 filed a civil suit (CO No.192/2009) in the Court of Civil Judge, Hanumangarh alleging material alterations and additions by the respondent No.1 in clause 8 of the said settlement. According to the appellants, the petitioners Nos.1 to 4 of the company petition (respondents Nos. 1 to 4 herein) have filed a written statement in the said civil suit admitting the execution of family settlement dated 22.09.2009. It is also submitted that on the basis of the family settlement dated 22.09.2009, the appellants Nos.2 and 3 have filed another .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nts Nos.2 & 3. 7. The Board, in its impugned order dated 23.04.2013, has taken the documents filed alongwith the application on record but has declined the prayer for stay of proceedings in the company petition while observing that the said suit relates to the partition of joint properties and is for a different purpose, whereas the company petition, for the relief against oppression and mismanagement, is maintainable before the Board; and the civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the company petition. The Board has further observed that the two proceedings are not between the same parties or their representatives and any decision of the civil Court will not bind any of the share-holders of the company, who are not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ore this Hon'ble Board to continue further and the documents (Annexures A and B) annexed with the present Application be taken on record." 8. Seeking to assail the order so passed by the Board, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the existence of family settlement had never been in dispute; and the company concerned, as being one of the entities covered thereunder, is to go to the share of the appellants, whereas the contesting respondents have taken over management and control of other company pursuant to the said settlement. The learned counsel also submitted that the family arrangements are governed by different principles and special equities, which are not applicable to the dealing with the strangers; and the Courts l .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mangarh (CO No.123/2012) is for the purpose of partition of the joint properties. The company petition has been filed by the present respondents essentially seeking the reliefs per Sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956 while accusing the appellants Nos. 2 and 3 of oppression and mismanagement. It cannot be said that the issues involved in the two matters, i.e., the company petition and civil suit are directly and substantially the same. The inquiry in the two proceedings operate in different arena and different field; and rather, the issues involved in the company petition are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the authority/Court envisaged by the Act of 1956. 12. The suggestion about operation of the interim order as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates