9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Subordinate court. Kozhicode. dated. 28.6.20 12. He is neither a necessary party nor a proper party in the matter relating to C.P. filed under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act. 1956. because no relief is claimed against the applicant, nor any transfer of shares pertaining to NSS Karayogam is under challenge. There is no concern whatsoever of NSS Karayogam with the Company petition. Petition dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aining to such shares as is made merely on the basis of documents filed before it hut it is deciding the question as to whether the R1/petitioner is entitled to maintain the C.P. under Section 397 and 398 alleging oppression and mismanagement. It has also been stated that the issue of share transfer is not involved in the C.P. and therefore the applicant cannot be said to be necessary or proper party because no relief is claimed in any manner against the applicant. A query has been raised to the counsel for RI/petitioner during the course of hearing in relation to the present status of shares with regard to which the applicant stated that the same has not been transferred. The counsel for respondent/applicant has drawn our attention to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orm 32 (2 Nos.) on 6.2.2010 that have been approved by the ROC on 7.2.2010. 5. Thus, it is clear that the company petition did not contain the issue of transfer of shares of the applicant in favour of the persons mentioned above. Now. it is also necessary to see the reliefs claimed in the company petition. The reliefs that have been claimed under para 8 at Page 7 of the main C.P. are reproduced as follows :- (a) to declare that the acts of the respondent No.2 to 5 are oppressive and prejudicial to the interest of the company and members (b) to declare that the EGM held on 06.02.20 10 is illegal and void ab initio. (c) To declare that the removal of the petitioner from the directorship of the company is illegal and void ab initio. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ikode wherein the applicant was plaintiff representing NSS Karayogam. The judgment dated 28.6.2012 makes it clear that the applicant has never been appointed as Secretary in NSS Karayogam. The issue of being representing NSS Karayogam has been decided against him. This is also supported by the reply which has been filed by Respondentl/Petitioner. It may not be out of place to mention that the petitioner who claims to the representative of NSS Karayogam is also arrayed as R5 in the main C.P. in the capacity of director of the company i.e. R2 in the application. 7. The General Rule with regard to impleading of the parties is that the petitioner in a petition being dorninus litEs may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
