9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Companies Act, 2013 - name of the appellant's has not recorded in the register of shareholder - HELD THAT:- Except a member qualified in terms of Section 399 (now Section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013), no other person is entitle to file any petition under Sections 397 and 398 (now Section 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013), the application at the instance of the applicant under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 397 and 398 is dismissed. Appeal disposed off. - JUSTICE S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, CHAIRPERSON AND BALVINDER SINGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Appellant : Shri Ansad Randeria, Shri A. Nair, Advocates For the Respondent : Shri Rajnish Sinha and Shri Nikhil Jam, Advocates ORDER This appeal has been preferred by the appellant (petitioner) against the order dated lath March, 2017 pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 and 398 of Companies Act, 1956. 35. In view of the above said findings this application LA. 11/201 6 filed by Original Respondent No. 2 and 3 is allowed. The company petition No. 69 of 2016 (New Number TP-136 of 2016) stand dismissed. In view of dismissal of TP 136/2016, Ms' 20 and IA 21/2017 are closed. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the combin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anies Act, 2013 is concerned, we are of the view that once the Tribunal held that petition under Sections 397 and 398, was not maintainable, the Tribunal was not required to decide the merit of the claim under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013, which is required to be decided on different criteria. As the petition was not maintainable before the Tribunal, it was not open to the Tribunal to giv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
