9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etween 2012-2013 till the date he had filed Company Petition in the year 2023. Rather if one peruses the additional affidavit filed by the Respondent herein before the Ld. NCLT one would find at the time of the filing of the Company Petition there were 97 members of the Company, the list of which stood uploaded on the website of the ROC and appears to be the correct list. Thus considering this number of members on the date of filing the petition, the Ld. NCLT held the appellant did not meet the threshold for filing the Company Petition. Considering the fact the appellant was removed in the year 2012 from the list of members in EOGM dated 01.02.2012; such removal having been published in the newspaper; the appellant never took steps to chall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal held on the date of filing of this petition the appellant was not a member of the company as had already been removed in the year 2012, which decision was never challenged by the appellant till filing of this petition in 2023, hence the Company Petition was held to be beyond limitation. 3. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant the impugned order dated 13.05.2024 is liable to be set aside since the Ld. NCLT had miserably failed to appreciate the facts averred in his affidavit dated 12.12.2023, shown to us by the appellant wherein he deposed that at the time of filing of the petition there were 7 original and valid members who were the original founder members and their recognition have since been confirmed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... back in EGM held on 01.02.2012 and since then the petitioner is not a member of the company. It is to be noted that the petitioner has not challenged the said decision taken by the management of the company. 20. The petitioner is challenging for the first time the actions taken by the new management through this petition. 21. We would mention here that if the petitioner was aggrieved by any of the acts of the new management, he could have approached this Tribunal within reasonable period or The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court with a Contempt Petition/Application, which was never done. 22. In our view the present petition is not maintainable as per Section 244(b) of the Companies Act, 2013. As' per Section 244(b) of the Companies Act, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elies upon a notice dated 05.01.2012, issued for holding an EOGM of the Company on 1.2.2012, to consider expulsion of the appellant and of Mr Ritin H Desai from membership of the company w.e.f. February 1, 2012 in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and in accordance with the Article of Association of the Company. The said EOGM was ultimately held on 1.2.2012 and the minutes of the EOGM of the members of the respondent 1 are also shown to us wherein it was resolved the appellant alongwith Mr. Ritin H Desai stood expelled from the membership of the company w.e.f. 1.2.2012 in accordance with the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and also the Article of Association of the Company due to the conduct of the appellant, being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
