9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JUDGMENT The appellant - Company is questioning the legality. and correctness of the order passed by the Company Law Board, Chennai in Company Application No. 1/2013 passed in Company Petition No.102/2012. The respondents have filed the Company Petition under Section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956 and Regulation 44 of the Company Law Board Regulations, 1991. 2. The appellants filed an applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ong with respondents - are shareholders of M/s Krishna Flour Mills (Bangalore) Private Limited. The only dispute is with regard to shares alleged to be transferred by M.K.Panduranga Setty, P.Vasantha, M.P.Shyam, M.S.Sharmila, M.P.Vikram, M.V.Ramavathi in favour of the appellants herein, i.e., M.K.Dattaraj, M.D. Venkatalakshmi, M.D. Kasturiranga, M.D.Karthik. It is the specific case of the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication came to be rejected. 5. It is the specific contention of the appellants that the order of the Company Law Board is contrary to the decision rendered by this Court in Ultrafilter GMBH v. Ultrafilter (India) (P.) Ltd. [2011] 167 Comp. Cas. 434 (Kar.). Relying upon the aforesaid decision she submits that the Company Law Board was required to allow application of the appellants. 6. Per con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aintainable is legal and valid?" 8. Admittedly, at an undisputed pointed of time the appellants and the respondents members of the joint family and they are admittedly shareholders of the company. According to the respondents they continued to be the shareholders and they have not transferred their shares in favour of the appellants and clandestinely without their knowledge the order has been obt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
