IN RE: RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this order I am considering CP No. 83/284/2012 filed by Shri Anil Kumar Poddar against M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. and Ors. in pursuance to the liberty granted by the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay vide its order dated 25.5.2012 in Civil Writ Petition No. 1160 of 2012 to make an application before the CLB seeking stay of the AGM of Reliance Industries Ltd. scheduled to be held on 7.6.2012, the petitioner had sought leave to withdraw the Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court with liberty to move the CLB for appropriate reliefs. This matter was heard today at length. The Petitioner argued his case in person. R -1 and R -2 were represented by different counsels. It is noted that the petitioner has filed a company petition (not a company application) wherein the following reliefs and interim orders have been prayed for in para Nos. 9, 10 and 11 at pages 29 to 32 of CP No. 83/284/2012 which read as under:

(2.) THE petitioner's case in Writ Petition, as pointed out, was that a share -holder's statutory rights have been denied, inspection of records has not been allowed fully, incomplete accounts of subsidiary companies of Reliance Industries have been provided giving very less time to the Petitioner to go through the same and raise objections in the AGM to be held on 7.6.2012 at 11 A.M. and hence, the prayers as sought above. My attention was drawn to various e -mails exchanged between the parties. It was pointed out that the petitioner gave a Special Notice u/s 284 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 16.4.2012 to the Company Secretary for removal of Mr. Mukesh Ambani, CMD of Reliance Industries Ltd. from the Board of Directors of the Company, it was pointed out that a copy of e -mail was also sent to Shri Mukesh Ambani and others in the company but the petitioner was surprised to note that the proposed Resolution was not included in the Agenda of the AGM circulated to the members.

(3.) THE Petitioner tried to explain his conduct by drawing my attention to the various criminal cases instituted by him against the R -1 and R -2. It was reiterated that the petition is made bona fide and is in the interest of justice. It was also stated that 63 petitions pending before the CLB, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai filed under Section 163 of the Act by the Petitioner on account of failure of the Respondents to allow inspection of records have nothing to do with this petition.