before the company law board - Company Law Board Mumbai Bench

14
do not find any merit in the allegations against the respondents and
also I do not find any diversion of funds by the respondents as
contended. The petitioners contended that the name of the
petitioner No.1 has been removed and in her place the name of her
husband i.e. R10 has been substituted. Similarly the name of
respondent No.2 has been removed and name of her husband i.e.
R6 has been substituted. In fact, the petitioner and the respondent
No.10 had neither applied for the same nor made payment for the
same. On the other hand the respondents contended that in view of
the family settlement they have already transferred/released their
rights in respect of the shares held by the petitioners, though the
formal transfer and execution of necessary documents in that
behalf is yet to be carried out by the petitioners. Though the
petitioners have not filed any shareholding pattern prior to the
family arrangement/settlement to prove their shareholding in the
Company, however, on perusal of search report filed by the
petitioners dated 28 th January, 2008, the names of the petitioner
No.1 & 3 and respondents 2,3,4,5 & 6 have been shown in the
directors column. However, the 1 st petitioner’s name and the 2 nd
Respondent’s name do not appear in the column meant for
shareholders’ details. It is now not known whether the petitioner
No.1 and respondent No.2 hold any shares in the Company and to
that effect they have not produced any documentary evidence to
CP 17/2008
Arsh