Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (3) TMI 199

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e impleadment could not have been allowed just for the asking. From the paragraphs reproduced from CA 34/2016, it is apparent that it was quite a vague application. There appears substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that when there was no amendment sought in the company petition so as to make out a case against appellant and there were no sufficient pleadings in the application for impleadment, the impugned order as has been passed is not maintainable, at least against the present appellant. The others who have been added and have not come forward to challenge the impugned order we will not interfere as regards those other respondents who have been added. The appeal is allowed, the impugned order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... plication as CA 34/2016 which did not show any averments against the appellant. No relief has been sought against the appellant in the company petition. Only on the basis that if the oppression and mismanagement is proved, NCLAT may have to pass some orders regarding the disputes of issue of shares, the present appellant could not have been added as respondent. The learned counsel submitted that in the company petition itself in para 19, the Respondent No.1 has filed the petition restricting the relief which he was seeking. Para - 19 reads as under: The petitioner submits that barring the initial allotment of shares at the time of incorporation, the shares subsequently subscribed and allotted are liable to set-aside, the same being i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Company Petition. 4. I state that this application is limited to the extent of impleading these proposed parties as party respondents to the above petition. The presence of these respondents would in no way prejudice the interest or rights of the other respondents. On the other hand the presence of these persons is paramount for complete adjudication of all the issues in the petition. 5. The Petitioner submits that the presence of these proposed parties would also ensure that all the parties, who would be affected if an Order is passed in the above petition, are before this Tribunal. This would not only put an end to all the issues in the petition but would also ensure that there are no further litigations in respect of the is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... learnt that preference shares had been issued without voting rights because of which the appellant found that she had been cheated and it was further found that transfer forms had been forged. It is stated that original respondents 2 and 3 moved Kerala High Court for quashing of the criminal case which has not succeeded. It is submitted by the learned counsel that before the Kerala High Court that original Respondents 2 and 3 tried to show that it is basically civil dispute between the parties. This was not accepted. The counsel submitted that the original respondents 2 and 3 have then filed SLP before the Hon ble Supreme Court on 06.04.2017 and just before that, on 01.04.2017, CA 34/2016 was filed before the NCLT. It is argued that ground .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s are seen, particulars of the shareholders can be ascertained. 8. Counsel for present Respondents 2 to 4 submitted that if the copy of the preliminary enquiry report filed by the appellant is seen, it can be appreciated that these respondents are facing criminal case on the facts which according to the learned counsel will also have to be considered in the company petition. The learned counsel thus submitted that the appeal should be rejected. 9. We have perused the prayers made in the company petition as well as para 19 of the company petition whereby Respondent No.1 original petitioner himself has restricted his challenge to the impugned allotments made in favour of the petitioner and original second and third respondents in th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates