JEHOVA EXIM PRIVATE LTD AND ORS Vs. M ROBERT AND ORS
LAWS(NCLT)-2016-11-24
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Decided on November 24,2016

JEHOVA EXIM PRIVATE LTD AND ORS Appellant
VERSUS
M ROBERT AND ORS Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAMESH BHAJANLAL THAKUR VS. SEASIDE HOTEL (P.) LTD. [REFERRED TO]
PRAFULLA KUMAR ROUT VS. ORIENT ENGINEERING WORKS P LTD [REFERRED TO]
SYED MUSHARRAF MEHDI AND SYED IQBAL MEHDI VS. FRONTLINE SOFT LIMITED AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

K. Anantha Padmanabha Swamy, Member - (1.)This application is filed by the applicants, who are respondents 1 to 5 in the Main company petition, under Section 403 of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Regulation 14 of the Company Law board Regulations 1991.
(2.)It is the case of the applicants that applicant No. 1 is the Company and that applicants 2 to 5 are the present shareholders of the company and the management is under their control. The petitioners 1 and 2 in the main company petition are not shareholders of the Company and therefore they have no locus at all to invoke the statutory rights of shareholders under Section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, the "Act"). The petitioners in the company petition state that their entire shareholding of 10,000 shares of Rs. 10/- each in the Company have been transferred to petitioners 3 to 6.
(3.)It is further stated by the applicants and as stated in the company petition by the petitioners that petitioners 1 and 2 could not bring in funds to pay vendors of certain properties purchased by the company. One of the averments in the company petition is that petitioners 3 to 6 have brought in the necessary funds and therefore it was decided by the petitioners 1 and 2 to transfer the shares of the company in their favour. It is stated by the applicants that the petitioners also alleged in the company petition that they were the directors of the company and there is shred of evidence with respect to the shareholding of petitioners, particularly in respect of shareholding of petitioners 3 to 6. It is also stated that the petitioners have not furnished any proof with respect to their shareholding. It is further stated that petitioners 3 to 6 were in control of the board of directors and they held all the shares in the company and still they have not been able to show any material to show that they were and are shareholders of the company at any point of time.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.