9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent company to rectify the shareholder register of the respondent Company and to delete the name from the ownership of 1,49,300 shares allotted to the appellant on the basis of prospectus dated 11.03.1996 containing misstatement. A declaration was also sought that the issue was not 100% underwritten and that the respondents No. 1 to 9 who signed and issued the prospectus dated 11.03.1996 are personally and jointly liable for consequences and to refund the appellant's entire amount with 24% compound interest. Other connected reliefs are also sought. 2. The case of the appellant is that respondent No. 1 Company came up with a public issue and issued the prospectus on 11.03.1996 in which respondents No. 2 to 9 who were the directors were the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd came to know about the hearing of two SLPs filed by Mr. Pukhraj Lunkar and Mr. Kamal Sethia against the respondent Company-Pasupati Fabrics Ltd. It is then that the appellant came to know about the fraudulent acts of the respondent. It is pleaded that limitation runs from the date of knowledge about the fraud i.e. which in this case is 06.02.2014. 5. Respondent No. 1 filed their reply. In the reply, it was pointed out that the appellant had before discharging its underwriting obligation fully satisfied itself and its liability to underwrite the shares. Prior to opening of the issue requisite stationery in the form of application form and prospectus were issued to the appellant who duly accepted the same. It is reiterated that the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ethia against the respondent Company-Pasupati Fabrics Ltd. Knowledge is claimed about the fraud from the said date. 9. I may note that on 23.11.2016 this court had noted the request of the learned counsel for the appellant as follows:- "At request of Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, the present appeal is not being taken up for hearing today. Mr. Sharma seeks leave to institute an appropriate application to lead evidence in the present appeal vis-a.-vis the question of limitation as well as the assertion that the public issue for equity shares underwritten, had not been underwritten by their represented underwriter. Leave granted. Re-notify on 10th January, 2017." 10. Pursuant thereto, evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
