9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (2) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition under sections 397, 398 and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956, or in the alternative under section 433 thereof for the winding up of the Company. Respondent No. 1 to the petition was the Company itself and respondents Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 are the directors of the Company. The three other petitioners, that is, petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 were Jagdish Chand Mehra, Joginder Lal Mehra and Jaigopal Mehra respectively. The paid-up capital of the Company on the 31st of March, 1962, was Rs. 6,68,812/- and the total number of members in the Company did not exceed 30. It was stated that the petitioners 1 to 3 held shares in the Company of the paid-up value of Rs. 1,21,550/-, and petitioner No. 4, that is, S.C. Davessar, held jointly with four others ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ays been in order, but whatever grievance, if any, petitioners 1 to 3 and respondent No. 9 had, those had been entirely removed, and they acknowledged that the working of the Company was in order. It was prayed that the Court may record the settlement arrived at between the parties and that Shri Madan Gopal be appointed to fix the valuation of the shares standing in the names of petitioners 1 to 3 and respondent No. 9 and late Shri Jaishi Ram Mehra in the Company. 3. The petition came up on the same day before Grover, J. who directed Shri Madan Gopal to make an assessment of the value of the shares of petitioners 1 to 3 and respondent No. 9 and the mode of payment, and submit a report within six weeks. 4. It appears that petitioner No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hdev, who has filed a reply opposing the award being made the rule of the Court. 6. The next event in the sequence was that petitioners 1 to 3 in Civil Original No. 95 of 1962, give an application dated the 6th of December, 1963 (L. M. 7 of 1964) in which they pointed out that in accordance with the valuation by Shri Madan Gopal they as well as respondent No. 9 had transferred all the shares standing in their names as well as in the name of their father late Jaishi Ram Mehra to Dr. Het Ram Aggarwal respondent No. 3, and that since petitioners 1 to 3 were no longer shareholders of the Company, they prayed that they may withdraw from the petition. This petition was allowed by my order dated the 10th of January, 1964, and in consequence the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able by reason of events subsequent to its presentation, and neither the right of the applicant to proceed with the application nor the jurisdiction of the Court to dispose it of on its own merits could be affected. The same reasoning should fully apply to a case where some of the petitioners have been permitted to withdraw from the petition. Accordingly, the preliminary objection put forward by Mr. Sikri cannot be sustained. 8. Mr. Sikri then contended that the insistence by S.C. Davessar to continue to prosecute Civil Original No. 95 of 1962 despite the fact that the other petitioners had now been satisfied that the affairs of the Company were being properly conducted, was an abuse of the process of the Court. Mr. Sikri on behalf of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
