before the company law board - Company Law Board Mumbai Bench

6
the Search Report is totally different than it was in the year 2000.
The name of the petitioner No.1 has been removed from the
shareholders and in her place the name of her husband, the R10 has
been substituted. Similarly, the name of R2 has been removed and
the name of her husband, the R6 has been substituted while in fact
the petitioners and the R10 had neither applied for the same nor
made payment for the same. Petitioners have also come to know
that R2 to 8 are using the property of R1 situated at Vapi, Gujart
for their own personal use and not for the purpose of the business
of R1 and R2 to 5 are not generating any revenue for the R1 which
is unambiguous case of diversion and siphoning off the funds of
R1 Company. R2 to 8 are invading and/or threatening to invade the
petitioners’ rights in the R1. There exists no standard for
ascertaining the damage caused or likely to be caused by such
invasion. Compensation in money alone would not afford adequate
relief. It is necessary to compel the R2 to 8 to act in a manner in
consonance with the understanding relating to the management and
control of the Company. There is no alternative remedy available
to the petitioners to redress their grievances as shareholders of the
R1. All efforts of the petitioners to reach a fair and reasonable and
acceptable via media to run the R1 in fair manner have met with no
positive response from R2 to 8 and have been turned down by R2
to 8 repeatedly, whose intentions are malafide and unreliable. R2
CP 17/2008
Arsh