9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs.100/- each. The paid-up capital of the company is Rs.3,90,000/- divided into 3900 equity shares of Rs.100/- each. The object of the company as per the Memorandum of Association is to carry on the business of acquiring land by purchase, lease or otherwise and constructing structures such as shopping complexes, hotel complexes or housing complexes and let out, lease or sell. The Registered Office of the Respondent Company is situated at Palarivattom, Cochin, Ernakulam 682 025. 3. The Petitioner had filed the above said petition under Section 59(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 for seeking an interim relief to restrain the Respondent Company from holding the Annual General Meeting or Extraordinary General meeting along with the main relief i.e. Rectification of the Register of Members of the Respondent Company. The averments made by the Petitioners' counsel are as follows: 4. The counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is entitled to hold 200 equity shares of Rs.100 each which stood duly registered and transferred in her name. She is one among the 32 shareholders of the 1st Respondent Company. On 28.06.2019, the 1st Respondent Company issued letter to all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale notice of 1650 fully paid up shares including Petitioner's 200 shares. 6. The counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the 1st Respondent company have no power or legal right to issue new shares to third parties. The Company has no right to issue new duplicate share certificate in the place of original share certificate held and kept by the Petitioner in her custody. If the Company ventures to issues duplicate share certificate while, the original ones are in the custody of the Petitioner, it will also amount to an act of fraud committed on the Petitioner by the delinquent directors of the 1st Respondent for which the Petitioner can take appropriate action against acts of fraud under Section 447 of the act, 2013.The counsel for the Petitioner stated that the Petitioner undertakes to take out advertisement of the hearing of the petition 14 days prior to the date of hearing as provided in and required by Rule 35 r/w Rule 70 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016. The averments made by the Respondent's counsel are as follows: 7. The counsel for the Respondent submitted that as per section 59(1) if the name of any person is, without sufficient cause, entered in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and it is only natural that subject shares are vested for the purpose of recovery of dues which are within the powers of the Board. 10. The counsel for the Respondent stated that the Petitioner is aware of the circumstances of the subject matter as the relevant issue of transfer of shops either through sale deed or through Rental Agreement was topics of discussion among the shareholders for the past 3 years on account of change in the circumstances on account of elapse of 33 years. Further due notices were sent to the Petitioner before the subject event matter was put into effect. There is no fraud in the procedure adopted by the company as alleged by the Petitioner as the sale was affected after due deliberations in a Board meeting in the interest of the Company. 11. The counsel for the Respondent further submitted that the shares are already disposed of and transferred to another person on payment of tender amount. The Respondents have acted within its powers given by the Articles of Association read with Companies Act and the vesting of shares and subsequent disposal of the subject shares was done in good faith for recovery of rent dues in the interest of the Company. Therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that service charge only collected from time to time and no rent was collected, therefore, the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1956 is not applicable in the present case. According to Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the lessor cannot make any claim for rental arrears in the absence of a registered instrument. The company does not have any document to show even trace of an agreement of lease, much less a registered lease deed. 14. Further the counsel submitted that there is no violation of the provisions of Income Tax Act,1961 as alleged by the Respondent. The Benami Property Transactions Act, 2016 is not attracted in the present case as alleged by the 1st and 2nd Respondents. Hence, pleaded to grant the prayers as mentioned in the petition. Arguments Notes submitted by the petitioner: 15. The learned counsel quoted that at in Albert Judah Judah Vs Rampada Gupta & Anr (AIR 1959 Calcutta 715) (para 42 and 43), Calcutta High Court held that the company will have the right to exercise the lien over the shares only. Right of the Respondent Company. If the shares only by instituting a suit to sell the shares. If the shares are not in the possess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allotting the shares to a 3rd party? 19. As regard to point No.(i): To arrive at a definitive conclusion as regard to the Issue (i) we have gone through the Articles of Association of 1st Respondent Company and the Model Articles of Association given in Schedule I Table F of the Companies Act, 2013. The respondent submitted that Table F is the replica of Table A in the earlier Companies Act, 1956. As per Clause 6(1) of the Articles of Association of the Company which is as under: i. "6. (1) Regulation 9 of Table A shall not apply" 20. The Articles of Association 6(1) clearly mention that Regulation 9 of Table A of the 1956 Act shall not apply, which means Clause 9 of Table F is not applicable to the 1st Respondent Company. As per Clause 6(2)(b) of Articles of Association of Respondent Company paramount lien can be exercised by the Respondent Company for recovery of dues. The paramount lien is extendable to dividends payable by 1st Respondent also. 21. However, the Articles of Association of the 1st Respondent Company doesn't prescribe the process to be followed for recovery of such dues payable from the Shareholders. The learned PCS for 1st Respondent and 2nd Respondent aver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the goods for the price while he is in possession of them; * (b) in case of the insolvency of the buyer a right of stopping the goods in transit after he has parted with the possession of them; * (c) a right of re-sale as limited by this Act. * (2) Where the property in goods has not passed to the buyer, the unpaid seller has, in addition to his other remedies, a right of withholding delivery similar to and coextensive with his rights of lien and stoppage in transit where the property has passed to the buyer. 26. In our view the Respondent Company in the instant petition will fall under the category of "unpaid seller" who can exercise the above rights only. Nothing more. It is settled law as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgement in Triveni Shankar Saxena Vs State of UP and Ors. (in para 17 to para 22) a lien is only a right to retain which is rightfully and continuously in possession belonging to another until the claims are satisfied. It can be acquired either by contract or by operation of law. It is the right of retention of goods. 27. In the light of the above discussion and in the absence of delineated process to exercise paramount lien, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll on default. A lien is merely a personal right of retention. One who has a lien has only a right of detaming the res until the money owning is paid:a lien disappears if possession is lost, and there is no right of sale. Sale on default is an incident of pledge. A pledge is assignable. A lien cannot be taken in execution, as the lien is merely a personal right:" 32. In the instant petition, the Respondent auctioned the shares without the consent of shareholders and without original shre certificate and transfer form in their possession. The earlier action appears to the illegal and not as per the Companies Act 2013. As such the answer to the third point is also negative. 33. Accordingly, the company has no right to auction and allot the shares to the third parties ignoring the right of fully paid up shareholders. The rental dues claimed by the respondent company is not supported by rental/lease agreement which is agreed by shareholder. We therefore go with the averments made by the petitioner that the entire acts of the company to auction the shares appears to be malfide and with ulterior motives. ORDER In the light of our above findings, we came to the conclusion that petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
