9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner. The petitioner asked only three reliefs, one for appointment of R-3 ,ls director as invalid, second for increase of authorised share capital as invalid, third showing him resigned as invalid, Since the petitioner has not placed any material showing appointment of R-3 as director and increase of authorised capital led to cause prejudice to him, then such acts could not become grounds to seek reliefs under sections 397 & 398 of the Companies Act. As to his removal as director, mere removal or appointment of anybody as Director in a company will not become a grievance unless it is coupled with some act prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. At the most, it could be a directorial complaint. Since the petitioner has not shown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 3, started abusing her substantial power for personal gains and started acting against the interest of the petitioner. 2. The crux of the case of the petitioner allegations in this Company Petition are that Second Respondent got her husband (R-3) appointed as Director on 27.3.2007, as if he was elected as Director in the EOG|4 purported to be held on 27.3-2007, but no such meeting was ever held for appointment of her husband as director, The second alleqation is that second respondent herein increased the authorised share capital of the company in an EoGM purported to be held on 10.7.2007, as if peiitioner was present on 10.7.2007, whereas the petitioner categorically mentioned no such meeting was ever held on 10-7-2007 for increase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondents prays for dismissal of the petition. The counsel on both sides vehemently argued to vindicate the litands taken by them in their pleadings. 5. On hearing the submissions of either side, this Bench has observed that this company came into existence on 19.3.2007 for running massage-cum-treatment centre and incidental services relating thereto. It appears that the dispute started betvveen the parties almost within 10-15 days from the date of incorporation. The petitioner and second respondent invested Rs. S0,000/- each as 50:50 shareholdino in the company. 6. The petitioner side alleged that since the Respondenb filed reply stating that the petitioner stated that he would take care of the'compliance' part relating to app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pital was increased, this petitioner has not placed any definite pleading or proof thereot stating that the acts committed by the second respondent are oppressive and prejudicial to the interests of the company. In a petition under sections 397 398 of the company petition, it does not matter whether the acts are legal or illegal, it matters under these sections when the acts committed by the party reflects that they are oppresslve and prejudicial to the interests of the petitioner. This petjtioner has not shown even a single act showing that the appointment of R-3 did something causing oppression or prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. The petitioner asked only three reliefs, one for appointment of R-3 ,ls director as invalid, s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
