9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 763X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Companies Act 2013. When it comes to merit, prima facie as it appears on record, it is a real estate company governed by RERA and has been mandated to release possession of the flats on phase wise, unless money comes into the company, it will become difficult to complete the project and to get the remaining balance that is to come from the home buyers. As to this aspect, the respondents' counsel has categorically mentioned that unless this project is finished on time and possession is given on time to the respective home buyers, the company will not get the remaining payment that is around ₹ 69 Crore from the home buyers - to show debt equity ratio to the creditor banker, it is necessary to raise equity to sustain and survive t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for two lac shares of ₹ 10 each, out of those two lac shares, the petitioners together are offered fifty thousand shares of ₹ 10 each on pro rata basis. If the petitioners do not subscribe to the same, the equity shareholding of the petitioners would ultimately dilute from 25% to decimally low. To which, the Respondents have not shown any palpable reason for increase of paid capital through rights issue. Considering it as oppressive and prejudicial against the petitioners having 25% shareholding in R1 Company, sought for stay over the notice dated 05.06.2020 to proceed with rights issue on 22.06.2020. 2. On perusal of the petition and hearing the petitioners and the Respondents counsel arguments, it appears that these petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Of course, both the sides have not agreed on this point. For because the petitioners saying these monies are not given to the suppliers/trade creditors, the respondents' side saying that all these transactions are in relation to discharging the functions of the company, we are of the view that it is a point for determination, therefore this Bench cannot say anything unless an affidavit comes from the respondents' side. If these alleged transactions are put against the business R1 Company doing in two to three hundred crores, it can't be at sight said as something siphoned from the company especially when it comes from the people who have only invested ₹ 25,000. 4. It appears that the respondents' side, by way of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 25,000 cannot put spokes in the conduct of business in the name of showing this company has been created on partnership lines. To which also, the respondents' counsel has mentioned that this company was basically incorporated in the year 2011, thereafter the petitioners have invested ₹ 25,000 by taking 2,500 shares, and now the business of the company today is around ₹ 200 to ₹ 300Crore. It is all with money and management of the Respondents. If the petitioners are interested to maintain their equity ratio, it is open to them to invest, instead of trying to halt the functioning the company. 7. In view of the same, we have not found any unfairness prima facie to grant stay as sought by the petitioners, therefore it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
