- (1.) The Petitioner filed these Company Petitions against different Companies, namely M/s. Nessville Trading Pvt. Ltd. (TCP 20/2013), M/s. Nidhivan Investments & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (TCP 21/2013), M/s. Lochness Investments Pvt. Ltd. (TCP 22/2013), M/s. Sahara Investments Pvt. Ltd. (TCP 24/2013), M/s. Go Investment & Trading Pvt. Ltd. (TCP 27/2013), M/s. Havenkores Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. (TCP 28/2013), M/s. Heera Holdings & Leasing Pvt. Ltd. (TCP 29/2013) for supply of full copy of Members' Register and Annual Returns for the years 2011-12, 2010-2011, and 2009-2010. The petitioner has remained absent, but for pleadings are complete, since the point in this case being short regarding inspection and supply of copies thereof, this Bench has decided these three cases on merits basing on the pleadings and submissions made by the Respondent Company by invoking Rule 48 of N.C.L.T. r/w Explanation to Rule 2and Rule 3 of Order 17 of C.P.C. 1.1 The petitioner being common in all these Petitions, their reliefs being common, the counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents being common, the pleadings in all these Cases not being in variance, for the sake of brevity, this Bench hereby passed common order in all these Petitions.
(2.) The Petitioner submits that he sent emails on 16.06.2012 to the Company Secretary to all the Respondent Companies for inspection of Minutes of last AGM, Register of Members, and last Annual Return filed with RoC, on his visit to the registered office of all these Companies on 29.06.2012.
(3.) Initially, the companies refused to allow inspection by their letter dated 25.6.2012, thereafter, these companies, by seeing continuous request of this Petitioner, they allowed inspection of the statutory register and Annual Returns of the Companies on 30-11-2012, thereafter, this petitioner again sent another email on 01.12.2012 to the Respondent companies for copies of the entire Register of Members and copy of Annual Returns for the years 2011-12, 2010-11, and 2009-10 by sending a cheque of 200 rupees towards statutory fees. But when no reply came from these Companies for more than a month, then the Petitioner visited the Companies registered office several times for the copies of the documents.;