SHRAVAN KUMAR PATEL Vs. MOHANLAL HARGOVINDDAS BIDI UDYOG (P.) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this order I am considering Company Application No. 55 of 2012 in Company Petition No. 58 of 2009 and Company Application No. 56 of 2012 in Company Petition No. 98 of 2009. The facts and contentions in both applications being the same, these two applications are being disposed of by a common order. The applicants in these applications have sought condonation of delay in filing rejoinder to the reply of respondents to the company petitions. The applicants' case in these applications is that on 24th August, 2009, the Company Law Board ('CLD') vide order dated 24th August, 2009, directed the respondents to file their reply to the company petition by 29th September, 2009, time for filing reply was extended only up to 16th October, 2009, reply dated 27th May, 2010, was filed only after 27th May, 2010, it was contended that the respondents had not moved any application for condoning of delay from 16th October, 2009, they have not complied with regulation 22 of the CLB Regulations, 1991, there is no order granting further extended time.

(2.) EXPLAINING the delay in filing of rejoinder, it was pointed out that on 11th June, 2010, the applicants had sought inspection of originals of all documents annexed to the affidavit in reply and referred to in both the above petitions; up to date articles and memorandum of association of the respondent -company; notice and proof of service of notice to the directors' and shareholders' of company for all meetings from the year 2000 to 2007; attendance register since inception in 1986 of both directors' meeting and shareholders' meetings; minutes register of both directors' and shareholders' meetings from 1986 till date including the minutes of annual general meetings ('AGM') of 10th April, 1987 and 25th April, 2000; returns submitted to the Registrar of Companies ('RoC') from 1997 till 2007; income -tax returns and audit reports of company and firm from the year 2000 till date; income -tax returns of Mr. Sidharth Patel from the year 2000 to 2007; income -tax returns of Smt. Jyotsnaben Patel from 2000 to 2007 (as the company has been maintaining the IT records of Smt. Jyotsnaben Patel); all papers signed by Shri Paramanandbhai in his capacity as shareholder, or chairman or director of company; books of account of Shri Paramanandbhai and Jyotsnaben P. Patel including their passbooks from 1997 to 2007; documents, if any, executed by late Shri Paramanandbhai for permitting the company to use the goodwill of the firm; shareholders' registers; disclosure of directors' interest in other companies being dealt with by M.H. Bidi. On 16th June, 2010, respondent No. 1 by their advocate's letter dated 16th June, 2010, falsely stated that in their hearing held on 20th August, 2009, request for inspection was dismissed by the CLB, hence, the applicants are not entitled for inspection of their records. On 17th June, 2010, the applicants' advocate by their letter dated 17th June, 2010, refuted the allegations. In July 2010 Company Application No. 98 of 2010 in CP No. 58 of 2009 and C.A. No. 97 of 2010 in CP No. 98 of 2009 were filed by the applicants seeking a direction to the respondent -company to produce the documents as sought vide letter dated 11th June, 2010. Vide the CLB's order dated 10th August, 2010, passed in CA No. 98 of 2010 the respondent -company was directed to produce documents and give inspection of documents on or before 31st August, 2010. It was stated that respondent No. 1 failed to produce the documents and provide inspection before 31st August, 2010, it had not complied with the CLB's order, time was not extended beyond 31st August, 2010, the documents were brought to the CLB only on 16th September, 2010 and inspection of the part of documents was granted on 16th September, 2010. My attention was brought to their inspection reports dated 21st September, 2010, wherein it is recorded that the inspection of the following documents are not granted: (i) Leave of absence documents and registers; (ii) Notice and proof of service of notice to the directors' and shareholders' of company for all meetings from the year 2000 to 2007; (iii) Attendance register since inception in 1986 of both directors' meeting and shareholders' meetings and shareholders' register; (iv) Minutes register of both directors' and shareholders' meeting from 1986 till date, including the minutes of annual general meeting of 10th April, 1987 and 25th April, 2000, but not produced the minutes of annual general meeting of 10th April, 1987; (v) Returns submitted to the Registrar of Companies from 1997 till 2007, but not produced for inspection; (vi) Audit reports of the company and firm from the year 2000 till date, but not produced for inspection; (vii) Form 32 attached to the reply affidavit of the respondent.

(3.) FT was contended by counsel for the applicants that regulation 29(4) of the CLB Regulations specifically provides that an order of the CLB shall be communicated to the parties free of costs, this particular order however, was not communicated to the applicant and his advocate. Since the applicant was unaware of the said order dated 18th October, 2011, no written application could be moved on 8th February, 2012. In this order, the statement of the respondent counsel is recorded that they have given inspection of all documents and furnished copy of all documents. This statement was totally false to their own knowledge and caused learned member to rely upon the said false statement.