Bikki Raveendra Babu, Member - (1.) The facts in brief, that are germane for the disposal of this Interlocutory Application, are as follows: 1.1 Applicant filed Company Petition No. 26 of 2016 before the Company Law Board on 5th October, 2015 against Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 herein alleging certain acts of oppression and mismanagement. The said Petition came to be transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TP No. 123/397-398/NCLT/AHM/2016". During the hearing on 17.10.2016, it was noticed that all the Directors of 1st Respondent Company were not shown as Respondents and therefore this Tribunal directed the Petitioner to take steps to bring all the Directors of the 1st Respondent as 'Respondents' in the main Petition. Thereafter, the Original-Petitioner filed this Application seeking to add Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 herein as 'Respondents' in Company Petition No. TP No. 123 of 2016 and seeking permission to file copy of Consent Letters from the members supporting the Petitioner at Exhibit 4 and carry out the necessary amendments in the main Company petition. It is stated in the Application that all the Directors of the 1st Respondent Company are required to be joined as 'party Respondents' in the main Petition. Applicant along with the main Petition at Exhibit-3 furnished List of Directors which includes Respondents No. 5 and 6 proposed parties. It is also stated in the Application that due to oversight, the Consent Letters supporting the Petition are not filed along with Exhibit-4 although it is stated that they were filed. Applicant filed Consent Letters along with this Application and sought to mark them as 'Pages 80-A onwards' in Exhibit-4.
(2.) In this Application, 2nd Respondent filed Reply stating that the proceedings in the main Petition are barred by limitation in view of the fact that the cause of action arose on 23.1.2012 and the Company Petition has been filed on 5.10.2015. It is stated in the Reply that since no Consent Letters are in existence Applicant failed to produce the Consent Letters along with the Original Petition and therefore such Consent Letters cannot be allowed to come on record. It is also stated that Consent Letters are not on Affidavit and they are not notarized. It is stated that Consent Letters when compared with list of shareholders do not tally. The Consent Letters consenting shareholders collectively hold only 32,500 equity shares as against 35,000 equity shares mentioned in the Company Petition. The Consent Letters of Rikin Patel, Hiren Patel and Prinit Patel who individually claim to be shareholders of 1250 equity shares are not even the shareholders in the Register of Members of the Company. In fact, late Mr. Surendra J. Patel who is the father of Rikin Patel, Hiren Patel and Prinit Patel was holding 1250 shares as shareholder of 1st Respondent Company. It is further stated that the Respondent Company has not received any intimation or application for transmission of the shares of late Mr. Surendra J. Patel in the names of Rikin Patel, Hiren Patel and Prinit Patel. It is stated that the Company Petition is filed to wrest control of the Respondent Company from the Respondents. Applicant filed Rejoinder stating that the Original Petition is not barred by law of limitation since it is filed prior to coming into force of section 433 of Companies Act, 2013 which came into force from 1.6.2016. It is also stated in the Rejoinder that the Consent Letters are of the family members and therefore the question of non-existence of Consent Letters is not there. The names of the persons who gave Consent Letters are reflected in the Annual Return and therefore they are the shareholders.
(3.) The points for consideration are (1) whether the Original-Petitioner/Applicant can be permitted to bring on record Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 herein as 'Respondents No. 5 and 6' in TP No. 123 of 2016; and (2) whether the original-Petitioner/Applicant can be permitted to bring on record the Consent Letters of the shareholders that are supporting the Petitioner at Exhibit-4 of the main Petition.;