ANILKUMAR PODDAR Vs. RELIANCE CORPORATE IT PARK LTD AND ORS
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
RELIANCE CORPORATE IT PARK LTD AND ORS
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)The Petitioner filed these Petitions u/s. 163 of the Companies Act, 1956 against the Respondent Companies in the respective Company Petitions seeking identical reliefs in all the Company Petitions for direction to the given Respondent Companies to provide copies of statutory Registers of the company to the Petitioner i.e. copy of full Register of Member, Annual Return of 2008-09 and 2009-10, and for exemplary costs to be paid by the Respondent Company to the Petitioner for not being given inspection as sought by him on receipt of emails sent by him.
(2.)The case of the Petitioner in all these Company Petitions is that he is a member and also shareholder of parent company Reliance Industries Ltd. or Reliance Industrial Infrastructure Ltd. He says he sent email to each company in each of the Petitions for supply copies of the Registers aforementioned by forwarding cheque for Rs. 200/- to each of the given companies towards the statutory fees. Responding to the same, each of the Companies wrote letter to the Petitioner suggesting him to download the copies of statutory registers and record from the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, but the Petitioner having not satisfied with their replies, shot back to the Respondent companies saying that they were to provide the certified copies of the statutory registers and records of the company because the print out from the website will not have any authenticity or legal standing. The company, despite there being a reminder from him, had not supplied the copies of the aforesaid documents until this Company Petition was filed before this Bench. He says that the company is under statutory obligation to furnish the documents to the Petitioner within 10 working days as mentioned in Section 163 of the Companies Act, 1956. But the company, in violation of statute, failed to furnish the copies of this statutory records without assigning any valid reason, hence these petitions.
(3.)On seeing these Petitions, the Respondent companies filed their respective reply on 26.6.2012 stating that the companies already sent the copy of Register of Members and all Annual Returns of each company by a covering letter dated 28.5.2012 in compliance of Section 163. For the company having complied with the provisions satisfied with the requirements sought in the Petitions, they say these Petitions are infructuous and deserve to be dismissed. The companies say that this Petitioner is not a shareholder of any of these companies and the request made for copies is not bonafide, and it is a Petition to harass the Respondent companies. The Respondents' counsel has given past history of this Petitioner about publishing defamatory statements against Reliance Companies and its officers and thereafter filing cases against the Petitioner, in turn, this Petitioner filing cases against the company. Since these averments other than statements in relation to this matter not being relevant, they have not been dealt with in this order.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.