9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upported by any facts/documents. The Bench is inclined to accept the submissions of the Respondents that the instant petition is time barred as per Limitation Act 1963 and is not eligible to file the instant petition however, instead of dismissing the matter on this ground alone, the Bench felt to consider other major allegation of the petitioner. The respondents have also correctly pointed out that the petitioner claims to be a Power of Attorney Holder of all his 146 applicants, has failed to submit even a single duly signed POA given by any of the applicants. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to file this instant petition. Though the petitioner sought to invoke Section 59 of the Companies Act 2013, the alleged fraud, fake, f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing any change to be made to the Register of Members in so far as it pertains to the 87600 shares being the subject matter of this Appeal (ii) The 1st Respondent be restrained by injunction from in any manner making or allowing any transfer or dematerialisation of any equity shares of it held by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents (iii) The 2nd and 3rd Respondents be restrained from in any manner dealing with or seeking to deal with any shares held by them in 1st Respondent irrespective of whether the said shares are held in physical form or in dematerialised form c. For ad-interim relief in terms of prayers (b) (i) to (iii) herein above; d. For costs, and e. For such other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rior to his becoming a member of the company. 5. R2 submitted that his shareholding and other promoter shareholders sold their entire share in Rl Company to R3 Company which triggered an open offer as per SEBI takeover Regulations. R2 submitted that as on date he is not holding even a single share in R1 Company. 6. The Respondents have also expressed their surprise as to why the 146 applicants have not uttered or whispered a single word all these years and did not approach any Authority/SEBI regarding non receipt of dividends, annual reports etc. Further the Respondents also questioned that when open offer in the year 2010 who made in accordance with SEBI (Substantial Acquisition on Shares and Takeovers) Regula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner is devoid of any merits and not maintainable in view of the settled Principles of Law, Unconceived, Not True, Illegal, Concocted, Fabricated, without any Documentary Evidence etc. 11. R1 has also rightly pointed out that the deed of assignment 21.09.2003 alleged to have been entered into between Phi-Alpha Investments Private Limited (PAIPL) and Viswapriya India Limited (VIL) is not executed on the stamp paper and not even notarised. 12. R1 has also submitted that VIL is not the owner of the subject shares i.e. 87600 shares and the payment is totally denied, untenable, fictional and imaginary. 13. The case was first listed before the Bench on 21.04.2017 and subsequently on 27.04.2017, 04.05.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... single share in R1 Company and the 87,600 shares of the R2 were bought by R3 and these shares would have changed hands several times from the original 146 applicants and third party rights have been created since shares were transferred in the year 1996 (21 years before), therefore, even in this count also the prayer of the petitioner is devoid of any merits. 16. It is also quite curious to note that the petitioner who bought only one share in the month of March 2017 makes allegation on behalf of all the 146 applicants who submitted applications in IPO in the year 1996 as forgery/fraud and illegal seeking for alteration of Register of Members of the 1st Respondent Company by the 2nd Respondent. 17. We also fai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
