9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1494X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B.S.V. Prakash Kumar, Member and V. Nallasenapathy, JJ. ORDER The Petitioner filed these Company Petitions against different Companies, namely M/s Nessville Trading Pvt. Ltd. (TCP 20/2013), M/s Nidhivan Investments Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (TCP 21/2013), M/s. Lochness Investments Pvt. Ltd. (TCP 22/2013), M/s. Sahara Investments Pvt. Ltd. (TCP 24/2013), M/s. Go Investment Trading Pvt. Ltd. (TCP 27/2013) M/s. Havenkores Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. (TCP 28/2013), M/s. Heera Holdings Leasing Pvt. Ltd. (TCP 29/2013) for supply of full copy of Members' Register and Annual Returns for the year 2011-12, 2010-2011, and 2009-2010. The petitioner has remained absent, but for pleadings are complete, since the point in this case being shor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stered office several times for the copies of the documents. When these companies failed to provide copies of the aforementioned documents, the Petitioner filed these Company Petitions against the respective companies for supply of copies of Statutory Registers and records of the company to the Petitioner as per the email dated 01.12.2012 and for imposing exemplary costs against the companies payable to the Petitioner herein for these companies violated the provisions of Section 163 of the Companies Act, 1956 for refusing to supply the copies as asked by the Petitioner. The Respondents Counsel submits that this Petitioner has been targeting Wadia Group companies for last several years trying to extort monies in any and every manner, f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already provided inspection of the documents aforementioned, since his intention is not for inspecting the documents, he sought for copies of the Register of Members and the Annual Returns for the year from 2009 to 2012. When these companies refused to supply copies on the demand made by him, he filed these Company Petitions against these three Wadia Group companies. The Respondents in all these companies refused to supply copies stating that since he is not a shareholder, he is not entitled for supply of copies of the documents this Petitioner asked by further stating that he is entitled to the copies of the same from the MCA portal as well. The legal arguments advanced by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent is that he ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very Petitioner filed an Appeal u/s. 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 challenging the order passed u/s. 163 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta held in Philips Carbon Black Limited and Others V/s A.K. Poddar and Another (2011)163 Company Cases 181 that the Company Law Board can refuse to pass an order if the request is for corrupt purpose, if the requisite is shown to cause serious prejudice to the Company or its members or Officers, or if the request otherwise appears to be immoral and oppose to public policy. The Respondent Counsel further submitted all these Respondent Companies are Private Limited Companies closely held among the family members, moreover he has not stated anywhere for what purpose this Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
