9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 987X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firm was trading and marketing of drugs and cosmetics. For raising loans for business purposes, a property jointly owned by the third respondent to the extent of 25 per cent., the father of the third respondent to the extent of 30 per cent, and the mother of the petitioner to the extent 25 per cent, was given as a collateral security with the bank. All the three of them had also given personal guarantees. The said firm was converted into a company being the first respondent-company in June, 2007, with a total paid-up capital of ₹ 15 lakhs comprising of ₹ 5 lakhs, contributed by the petitioner, the second and third respondents each. Around March 2008, disputes and differences had arisen between the three shareholders who were al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny of these alleged meetings and as a matter of fact, no meeting was actually held. Since the petitioner has contributed not only to the shareholding of the company substantially but also had been in active participation not only as a director of the company but also as a partner of the firm - both together for a period of over eight years from 2001, his removal as a director and also the refusal of the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the affairs of the company is highly oppressive. Accordingly, the petitioner has sought for setting aside the removal of the petitioner as a director for restraining the respondents from causing any interference in the petitioner taking part in the affairs of the company. 4. Heard Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver ₹ 5 lakhs. Even as late as on October 15, 2008, the petitioner induced the stockists asking them not to make any cash payment to anyone other than the petitioner. In view of the prejudicial acts of the petitioner, the company had to file a suit seeking for permanent injunction against the petitioner from representing himself to be a director of the company and also seeking for restoration of all the records removed by the petitioner from the company. It is the acts of the petitioner which are burdensome, harsh and oppressive. Allowing the petitioner to participate in the affairs of the company would be highly prejudicial to the interests of the company. 6. I have considered the pleadings and arguments of counsel. The substantiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of any proof that notices had been issued to the petitioner for the board meetings alleged to have been held, I hold that the respondents could not have applied the provisions of Section 283(1)(g) of the Act and consequently filed Form No. 32. 8. Even otherwise, in a quasi partnership, removal of a partner/director that too by applying Section 283(1)(g) of the Act is a gross act of oppression. From the tenor of the reply of the respondents wherein they have made various allegations against the petitioners, it is quite apparent that their intention to remove the petitioner as a director is quite evident and obviously the statutory provision, viz., 283(1)(g) of the Act had been applied to remove the petitioner as a director. No doubt, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
