9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns for supplying copies of the Registers aforementioned by forwarding cheque for Rs. 200/- to each of the given companies towards the statutory fees. Responding to the same, each of the Companies wrote letter to the Petitioner suggesting him to download the copies of statutory registers and record from the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, but the Petitioner having not satisfied with their replies, shot back to the Respondent companies saying that they were to provide the certified copies of the statutory registers and records of the company because the printout from the website will not have any authenticity or legal standing. The company, despite there being a reminder from him, had not supplied the copies of the aforesaid documents until this Company Petition was filed before this Bench. He says that the company is under statutory obligation to furnish the documents to the Petitioner within 10 working days as mentioned in Section 163 of the Companies Act, 1956. But the company, in violation of statute, failed to furnish the copies of this statutory records without assigning any valid reason, hence these petitions. On seeing these Petitions, the Respondent companies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records for many years, sometimes even from the date of incorporation, these companies will obviously not in a position to provide voluminous documentation to a shareholder who has hardly one/two shares in listed companies. This sub-rejoinder only reflects denials to the assertions made in the rejoinder, therefore we believe that there is no merit in depicting entire rejoinder here. This Bench, having seen more than 100 matters u/s. 163 pending for the last four years on a short point solely from this Petitioner, has taken up these cases for hearing disregarding the delay tactics this petitioner employed. The companies in all these Petitions are subsidiaries of either Reliance Infrastructure Industries Ltd. or Reliance Industries Ltd. Here, not only the section of law and the Petitioner, but also the ground in all the company Petitions are common and the date of requisition seeking inspection and supply of copies of the records of these companies. The Petitioner being common, the section of law being common, all these companies being subsidiaries of either Reliance Infrastructure Industries Ltd. or Reliance Industries Ltd., not only that, for the Respondent Companies in all these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly to NCLT. By experiencing the conduct of the Petitioner, it has become clear to this Bench that this Petitioner sends left and right e-mails to the Bench, whenever it is not convenient to him to obtain adjournment from this Bench, and he will remain easing by sending somebody else to take adjournments. Having this Bench realized if this Bench succumbed to these kinds of tactics, these matters will remain on the file of NCLT for many more years for solely letting this Petitioner to keep this litigation pending against various companies, not only that, piling up pendency in NCLT for no reason. It is needless to say that this Tribunal normally adjudicates cases basing on the pleadings and affidavits filed by the parties, if the Petition, reply and rejoinders come on record, this Bench construes that case is ready for oral submissions basing on the affidavits filed by the parties. Here Respondents have even filed sub-rejoinders to the rejoinders. This Bench, rarely, takes up oral evidence to dispose of the cases. Though no party is expected to include legal arguments in the pleadings, this Petitioner went ahead discussing various citations to cover even legal arguments in the plea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an either proceed with the case as if such party were present, when substantial portion of evidence is recorded as mentioned under Explanation to Rule 2, and fails to perform any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, the court may, notwithstanding such default, proceed to decide the case forthwith or proceed with u/r. 2 or as enumerated u/r. 3 of Order 17. The pleadings are complete, the facts of either side not being denied, the Petitioner having included the citations supporting his contentions, even if it is construed that this Petitioner is absent, this Bench may proceed to dispose of this matters basing on the Explanation given to rule 2 of order 17. If it is assumed that his representative appearing before this Bench as Petitioner presence, and the Petitioner having failed to advance his side oral arguments then also by invoking rule 3(a), this Bench can proceed to decide these cases forthwith. On giving careful reading to Explanation to Rule 2, it only talks of completion of adducing factual aspects, not talking of adducing oral arguments or written arguments. It is therefore, clear that once factual aspect, that is assertions and denials is complete an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. Since other two category of persons preceding to "any person" being the persons having interest in the company, the word following the persons having interest in the company must also be the person having interest in the company or connected to the company in one or other way. The persons enumerated as member and debenture holders are the persons having interest in the company, it can't therefore be understood that the word "any other person" include persons not having interest in the company. It goes without saying that there are other persons who have business interest in a company, such as creditors, investors, and the people having stake in the company. The Petitioner being a rank outsider to the company, not falling in class of persons such as creditors, investors, etc., the Petitioner cannot claim his entitlement to seek inspection or copies under the cover of word any other person. In the citation supra, it has been reiterated that ejusdem generis is applicable to say that the preceding words will sometime expand the scope of word following them or sometimes limit the scope of the word following them. But one thing is certain that the meaning of the following word is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g a conjoint meaning of the person mentioned in sub-section 2 of Section 163 - member or debenture holder and of any other persons, this Petitioner will not fall under any of the above three classes of persons, therefore, this Petitioner is not entitled to seek this relief u/s. 163. However, the Respondents to avoid getting entangled in litigation, they already provided copies of documents asked by this Petitioner, in spite of it, he has stubbornly been harping on the relief sought by him. For the reasons stated above, this Bench having noticed that this Petitioner is in the habit of raising frivolous litigation again many of the listed companies either by subscribing one or two shares or under the head of "any other person" u/s. 163 by asking inspection of the documents from the date of inception of the companies. Knowing fully well, that it will not be possible to provide inspection of the documents from the date of inception, when the company failed to provide inspection or supply of copies, he files Petitions u/s. 163 or sec. 219 of the Companies Act, 1956. If any company says copies are provided as sought by the Petitioner, he will start arguing for exemplary costs for not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
