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

2020 (8) TMI 653

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the public interest and to wind up the Company would unfairly prejudice member or members, but that otherwise the facts would justify the making of a winding-up order on the ground that it was just and equitable that the Company should be wound up, it (Tribunal) with a view to bring to an end the matters complained of, make such order as it thinks fit. Thus, even in absence of Section 388B of the Companies Act, 1956, with a view to bring an end of the matters complained of, the Tribunal is empowered to pass similar order relying on Sections 241 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 as was empowered under Section 388B of the old Act. In view of the fact that the affairs of the Company are bein .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... compliances etc. The Tribunal also formed opinion that the existing management should not be continued and should be replaced by the New Directors to be nominated by the Union of India as per law. In the result, the following directions was issued: - 18 In the result, C.P. No.02 of 2014 (T.P. No.300 of 2017) is disposed of with following directions: a. We hereby declared that the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are hereby ceased to be the Directors of the R-1 Company Appeal (AT) No. 111 of 2019 Page 3 of 7 Company and they are debarred from taking/ involving any action with regard to the affairs of Company with immediate effect. Consequently, Union of India is permitted to appoint Directors to R-1 Company M/s. Megacity Bangalore Developers .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pending before the Company Law Board, Chennai Bench has been ignored. 8. It appears that Central Government through Ministry of Corporate Affairs on the basis of the report of the Registrar of Companies, Karnataka referred to non-filing of the statutory returns for the year 2006-07 and consequently depriving legitimate rights of the Members. It is not in dispute that the matter was investigated by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), which filed report. In the report different allegations were highlighted:- (i) The Company was promoted by Shri C.P. Yogeshwara, Managing Director and his wife Manju Kumari and Shri Charantimath and his wife Sujatha Charantimath in the year 1994. Shri Charantimath and Sujatha Charantimath submi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... public, it was found that MD Shri C.P. Yogeshwara has forged the false document to get the DIN three times under the name with partial modification. (v) The Company had adopted the illegal trade practices and misrepresented to the general public by brochures/ pamphlets and the Project Vajragiri was displayed as Government sponsored project and as a residentially converted layout approved by the statutory authority, which will enable the members benefit of loan from all financial institutions. Whereas, on enquiry with BMRDA it was revealed that it has not accorded any kind of approval for such project to launch. (vi) The Company purchased land for a consideration of ₹ 46,72,500/- in the name of MDBL in the year 2005-06, but .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the public interest and to wind up the Company would unfairly prejudice member or members, but that otherwise the facts would justify the making of a winding-up order on the ground that it was just and equitable that the Company should be wound up, it (Tribunal) with a view to bring to an end the matters complained of, make such order as it thinks fit. 12. In view of the aforesaid provisions of law, we hold that even in absence of Section 388B of the Companies Act, 1956, with a view to bring an end of the matters complained of, the Tribunal is empowered to pass similar order relying on Sections 241 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 as was empowered under Section 388B of the old Act. 13. The in .....

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