9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1965X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut of the Impugned Order by which the National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench, Chennai ('NCLT', in short) sat over the Order of this Appellate Tribunal which had set aside the earlier Order of the NCLT rejecting impleadment of the Appellant and had been directed to hear the parties on merits. By the Impugned Order, NCLT analysed and discarded the additional document which was pointed out to this Tribunal and was accepted in the earlier Appeal and again rejected the claim of the Appellant seeking right of hearing. 1.1 We have heard Counsel for both sides. 2. The Appellant - Nair Service Society Karayogam is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Appellant filed CA 1/2013 (Diary No.6149 - Page - 4) for im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner was incorrect and false as the alleged members were not members of the Respondent Company. Counsel for Appellant has argued that Respondents 3 to 5 of this appeal are Directors of Respondent No.2 Company and also office bearers of Appellant but Appellant has independent entity and is promoter of the Company and majority shareholder holding 520 equity shares. The Appellant claimed in CA 1/2013 that the Company was incorporated in 1976 with the office bearers of the Appellant as the Board of Directors and the Appellant had assigned 2 acres of land to the Company for the business objectives and the Appellant (Applicant) had been allotted 520 equity shares of Rs. 100/- each in the Company and since then it was holding the same. The A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was filed in this Tribunal by the Appellant in which Form 20B had been filed by the Company giving details including shareholding during Financial Year ending 31st March, 2012. This Tribunal considered the list of equity shareholders which had been enclosed with the said Form 20-B which included 300 + 220 shares standing in the name of the Appellant. After thus referring to Annexure - E which had been filed, this Tribunal observed:- "3. On notice Respondent No.1 and 2 have appeared but not denied the genuinity of Annexure - E. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents submits that the appellant otherwise had no case to contest the CP. It is also contended that the present signatory is not authorised to file petition on behalf of the appellant. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord and claimed that the original Respondent No.2 - Prabhakaran Nair will be representing in dual capacity before the Tribunal. The Appellant thus referred to the case it was putting up and claimed that its shares had never been sold and transferred or alienated in favour of anyone and that the contesting party Respondent had been and continues to be majority shareholder in the Respondent Company. The Appellant referred to Notice dated 28.11.2005 calling meeting of the Appellant to remove the original Petitioner and one Shri P. Venugopala Menon and that they were removed from their positions in the meeting held on 11.12.2005. Referring to these and other facts in details, the Appellant claimed that the original Petitioner was indulging i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 06.02.2010, and become the Director of the 1st Respondent Company and filed Form No.20B relating to AGM dated 20.09.2012 for the financial year ending 31.03.2012 with the Registrar of Companies, with which he has enclosed the lists of the equity shareholders as per the allotment dated 28.05.1984. Thus, bringing on record an earlier document in order to show that M/s. NSS Karayogam still holds 520 shares in the 1st Respondent Company, which is contrary to the record as has been referred in the preceding paragraphs. The copy of the list showing allotment of shares made on 28.05.1984 had been produced before Hon'ble NCLAT to show that M/s. NSS Karayogam is still a shareholder of the 1st Respondent Company, whereas, the same is contrary t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009 relating to disputes between the parties, especially when it is stated before us (and not denied by the counsel for Respondents) that Appeal against the Impugned Order in OS 590 of 2009 is still pending. At interim stage of the matter, if this Tribunal had observed that there was document to show that the Appellant was shareholder and holding 520 shares out of 1,000 fully paid up shares, it was inappropriate for the NCLT to sit over the Judgement of this Tribunal to conclude that the shares of the Appellant - Applicant had been transferred on 22.10.2008 and thus, the Appellant has no locus standi to file the application for impleadment. In fact, the impleadment application already stood disposed vide this Tribunal's earlier Judgement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
