9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r reliefs while on the other hand by holding that they had not made out a prima facie case to seek the other reliefs. In our view, that is incorrect as once their names were restored in the shareholding pattern as also on restoration of their names in the register of the members of the company, they also had locus standi to seek other reliefs. So far as other reliefs are concerned, we find from the impugned order of the CLB that it has simply observed that the appellants have not made out any prima facie case, particularly with regard to the oppressive acts purported to have been committed by the respondents, which were prejudicial to the interest of the company. The observations of the CLB while disposing the matter, are, to say the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and the petitioners. (b) To declare that all the board meetings convened without the participation of the 2nd, 6th and 12th petitioners and without issuing notice to them as illegal, not valid and not binding on the petitioners and set aside the same. (c) To set aside the illegal transfer of shares of the petitioners to the respondents and declare that the transfer is illegal and void and also direct the company to restore the shareholding pattern of the Company as on 31.02.2005. (d) To direct the Company to rectify the register of members in order to incorporate the petitioners names with their original shareholding. (e) To declare that the conversion of the unsecured loan provided by the petitioners is illegal and arbitrary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omission of documents which are material and deliberately not filed within the returns filed in his office by the 2nd and 11th respondents in the affairs of the Company. (l) To pass any other order that the Bench think deem fit. By the impugned order, the CLB has considered prayers 'c' and 'd' only as sought by the appellants herein and has granted the reliefs. As far as other prayers are concerned, the CLB has, on one hand held that the petitioner/appellant No.2 had no locus standi to seek those prayers. It has also held that the petitioners therein had not made out any prima facie case with regard to the other acts purported to be oppressive and prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners and accordingly, dispose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so not in accordance with law. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record in light of the reliefs sought by the appellants herein, we note that the CLB has considered the matter in detail with regard to the relief sought by the appellants herein insofar as restoration of their names in the register of the members of the company is concerned as per shareholding pattern as on 31/3/2005. As already noted, the appellants have no grievance with regard to that aspect of the matter. But in the latter portion of the impugned order, we find that the CLB has contradicted itself on the one hand by observing that the appellants appearing before the CLB had no locus standi to seek other reliefs while on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
