9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment during the period between 2013, 2014 and 2015 was not barred by Limitation and Tribunal was required to confine the petition for the said period. Form 20B, in which annual return has been filed by company with the Registrar of Companies for the financial year beginning on 31st March 2012 has been enclosed as Annexure-B to this appeal. From the said Form 20B (refer Section 159 of the Companies Act 1956), provides details of shareholders as on 30th September 2012 (Annexure-A to the Form). Therein, against the name of 1st appellant, " Esquire Electronic Inc." it has been shown as a foreign company having 429740 equity shares with the 1st respondent company which come to about 9.54% as on the date of filing. In so far as 2nd appellant " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Company Law Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal in Company Petition No. 108/ND/2016 whereby and whereunder the Tribunal dismissed the Company Petition filed under Section 241 and 242 of the Companies Act 2013, and imposed cost of ₹ 25,000/- on the appellant(s) with following observation: - 22. It is needless to say that any observation made in the instant order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merit of controversy raised in CP 67/2006 or any application filed therein. As the petitioners have filed the instant petition against Respondent No. 1 and against its directors Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and Respondent No. 6 company, we find that the petition is hopelessly time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d appellant also alleged that its shareholding was illegally diluted by 2nd and 3rd respondents since the year 2005 to 2.83%, and then in the year 2012 to 1.88%. Despite the illegal dilution, the current collective shareholding of the appellant (s) is 11.43% of the equity capital of the company. 4. According to appellant(s), 1st respondent company was incorporated in the year 1995 and 2nd 85 3rd respondents were its-initial promoters. The 1st respondent is in the business of telecom services but it has not been doing any business since 2004-2005 and as per the data available with the Registrar of Companies, it has not done any statutory filings since 2012 and even prior thereto the filings are incomplete. As per the records, the last Ann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther been director, shareholder or members of the 1st respondent company at any stage whatsoever. 9. Notice (s) were issued on respondent (s) by speed post but all notices returned by the postal department with specific note that the 2nd and 5th respondent (s) refused to accept notice and the 1st respondent left without address. In that view of refusal the notices were treated to be served and the appeal was heard. 10. This court mainly heard the question of limitation and maintainability as the Tribunal observed that the petition is barred by Limitation and appellant(s) are neither directors, nor shareholders of the 1st respondent company. 11. The appellant(s) have specifically pleaded that the respondents failed to perform statut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de of Civil Procedure. We also agree with the finding of the Tribunal that the suit for which there is no prescribed period is provided as per Article 113 of Limitation Act 1963, period of limitation is three years. For the reason aforesaid we agree with the finding of the Tribunal that appellant(s) cannot rake up any issue which is barred by limitation i.e., of a period which is three years prior to the date of filing of the Petition. 13. However, in this case we find that the appellant(s) alleged inaction on the part of the respondents even after the year 2013. They have made specific allegation that no Balance Sheet of the 1st respondent company audited and circulated for the year 2013, 2014, 2015 and thereafter. The appellant(s) ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent company nor referred to any evidence. 17. Form 20B, in which annual return has been filed by company with the Registrar of Companies for the financial year beginning on 31st March 2012 has been enclosed as Annexure-B to this appeal. From the said Form 20B (refer Section 159 of the Companies Act 1956), provides details of shareholders as on 30th September 2012 (Annexure-A to the Form). Therein, against the name of 1st appellant, Esquire Electronic Inc. it has been shown as a foreign company having 429740 equity shares with the 1st respondent company which come to about 9.54% as on the date of filing. In so far as 2nd appellant Esquire Electronics (India) a firm, it is shown that the 2nd appellant have 84680 equity shares of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
