before the company law board - Company Law Board Mumbai Bench

More documents

Recommendations

Info

10 released their right in respect of the shares held in their names, although the formal transfer and execution of the necessary documents in that behalf is yet to be carried out by the petitioners. The increase of share capital was made in compliance of the relevant provisions of the Act and with the knowledge and consent of the petitioners and the respondents as the same was done prior to the family arrangement. Moreover, the balance sheet showing the share capital as Rs.1 lac has been duly signed by Mr.Gyan Dev Sadh of the petitioners’ group and Mr.Bazzar Dev Sadh of the respondents’. CP 17/2008 Arsh In view of the reasons stated above the petitioners have not made out any case and the petition is liable to be dismissed. The Learned Senior Counsel relied upon various decisions in support of his case. The relevant decisions have been discussed in CP 15 of 2008 filed by Mr.Gyan Dev Sadh and his group/family against Mr. Bazzar Dev Sadh and his group/family, therefore, I do not consider it to repeat the same. 7. Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings, documents filed in their support. After analyzing the pleadings, the following issues are felt for consideration and the same are need to be addressed. 1) Whether the R1 Company is run on the basis of principles of quasi partnership 2) Whether this Bench has any power to direct the
11 parties to enforce the family arrangement/ settlement CP 17/2008 Arsh 3) Whether the respondents denied the inspection of records and registers to the petitioners 4) To what relief The Issues 1 & 2 have been decided in detail in CP 15 of 2008 filed by Mr.Gyan Dev Sadh against M/s.Parmeshwar Exports Private Limited and Others, as issues 1 & 3 therein, therefore, no need to repeat in this petition. Now I deal with the issue No. 3: The petitioners contended that the respondents have not provided the inspection of the records and registers to them. It is their case that though they have signed the Annual Accounts for the year ended 31.3.2004 and after that the Respondent No.2 has not sent any Annual Accounts for the year ended 31 st March, 2005 to 31 st March, 2008 respectively. Except the averments made in the petition, there is no other documentary proof to show that the petitioners requested the respondents to provide inspection of the records and documents of the Company. It is on the record that Mr.Gyan Dev Sadh and his group being petitioners in CP 15 of 2008 have sought inspection of the documents of that Company and the respondents have enclosed a copy of that letter dated 23 rd June, 2008 addressed by the petitioners therein. Though the petitioners are 50% shareholders in this Company also, however,
Page 1 and 2: BEFORE THE COMPANY LAW BOARD, MUMAB
Page 3 and 4: 3 of Respondent Nos. 3, 6 and 7 as
Page 5 and 6: 5 petitioners are 50% partner in th
Page 7 and 8: 7 to 8 are not interested in the we
Page 9: 9 the Bazzardev Sadh being the head
Page 13 and 14: 13 search report dated 28 th CP 17/
Page 15 and 16: 15 establish the same. Whilst the r
Page 17: 17 petitioner No.1 family and Respo

before the company law board - Company Law Board Mumbai Bench

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?