TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n existence as on the date of filing of the Petition or they were brought into existence subsequently, is not an issue to be adjudicated in this Application. Petitioner specifically stated in the Petition that shareholders holding 35000 equity shares gave Consent Letters. A perusal of the Consent Letters filed along with this Application show that they do not bear any date. No doubt, they are not notarized. The genuineness or otherwise of the Consent Letters also need not be gone into in this Application. Another aspect raised by the Respondent is that the persons who gave Consent Letters are not there in the List of Shareholders. This is also a matter that need not be probed in this Application at this stage. When there is an averment i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MR. BIKKI RAVEENDRA BABU, J. For the Petitioner : Pavan Godiawala, Ld. Adv. For Rhe Respondent : Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh and Kunal Vaishnav, Ld. Advs. ORDER 1. The facts in brief, that are germane for the disposal of this Interlocutory Application, are as follows; 1.1 Applicant filed Company Petition No. 26 of 2016 before the Company Law Board on 5th October, 2015 against Respondents No. 1 to 4 herein alleging certain acts of oppression and mismanagement. The said Petition came to be transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TP No. 123/397-398/NCLT/AHM/2016 . During the hearing on 17.10.2016, it was noticed that all the Directors of 1st Respondent Company were not shown as Respondents and therefore this Tribunal d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and therefore such Consent Letters cannot be allowed to come on record. It is also stated that Consent Letters are not on Affidavit and they are not notarized. It is stated that Consent Letters when compared with list of shareholders do not tally. The Consent Letters consenting shareholders collectively hold only 32500 equity shares as against 35000 equity shares mentioned in the Company Petition. The Consent Letters of Rikin Patel, Hiren Patel and Prinit Patel who individually claim to be shareholders of 1250 equity shares are not even the shareholders in the Register of Members of the Company. In fact, late Mr. Surendra J. Patel who is the father of Rikin Patel, Hiren Patel and Prinit Patel was holding 1250 shares as shareholder of 1st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bring all the Directors of the 1st Respondent Company as Respondents in the main Petition. The List of Directors of 1st Respondent Company filed along with the main Petition, clearly shows that 'Respondents No. 5 and 6' are also Directors of the 1st Respondent Company. The presence of Respondents No. 5 and 6 herein as 'parties' to the main Petition is necessary for deciding the issues involved in the Company Petition. Therefore, original-Petitioner/Applicant is permitted to add proposed Respondents No. 5 and 6 as Respondent No. 5 and Respondent No.6 in TP No. 123 of 2016. 6. The Company Petition is filed by one shareholder, by name Mr. Kanakbhai Ratilal Patel, who is the present Applicant. In Page No.6 of the Company Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stence subsequently, is not an issue to be adjudicated in this Application. Petitioner specifically stated in the Petition that shareholders holding 35000 equity shares gave Consent Letters. A perusal of the Consent Letters filed along with this Application show that they do not bear any date. No doubt, they are not notarized. The genuineness or otherwise of the Consent Letters also need not be gone into in this Application. 8. Another aspect raised by the Respondent is that the persons who gave Consent Letters are not there in the List of Shareholders. This is also a matter that need not be probed in this Application at this stage. When there is an averment in the Petition that Consent Letters were filed and when they were not in fact f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|