9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the relationship between the petitioners and respondents were of quasi partnership, wherein 50% holding of the respondent no. 1 company was to be held by each group. However, later on the shareholding of the petitioners was kept at 40%. It is further claimed that on this issue, the petitioners pursued the respondents who made promises but did not increase the shareholding as originally agreed. During the lockdown, it was not possible for the petitioners to visit the plant sight which was based in Muzaffarnagar, hence, petitioners were left at the mercy of the respondents to get any information. Subsequently, when the petitioners inspected the master data of the company, it was found that their shareholding had been reduced to 0.2% by way of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round, the Ld. Counsel pleaded that the petitioners had all apprehensions regarding disposal of the assets of the company to the detriment of the interests of respondent no. 1 company and petitioners. Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel prayed for following internal reliefs. i. There should be a restraint on respondent no. 2 to 4 on disposal of the assets of the company including plant and machinery and other assets (both immovable and movable). ii. A Special Officer or Director may be appointed to fairly conduct the affairs of the company till the disposal of this petition. iii. The operations of all the Bank accounts relating to the respondent no. 1, company should be done jointly both by the petitioners as well as respondents. iv. The p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and whereby the respondent no. 1 company had taken over the assets of such company. 10. It is also noted that even as per the respondents, a loan was taken by the respondent company to acquire assets of such company. A claim has been made that the right issue was made to clear the dues of electricity department. No reasonable justification as to why these funds were raised by way of right issue or private placement of equity shares and could not be raised in the form of loans has been given. We further find that even if there was arrest of petitioner no. 2, no plausible explanation has been given as regard to removal of petitioner no. 1 as Director of the respondent no. 1 company. 11. In the background of these facts, at this stage of int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
