before the company law board - Company Law Board Mumbai Bench

13their names continue to be shown as shareholders of the company,save and except in respect of the year 2007-2008, as the accounts forthe same are not yet audited and finalized. The R6 is one of theshareholders of the R1 Company. It is false to state that theRespondents are using the property of the company for their personaluse and the same is being used for the purpose of the company as setout in the books of accounts of the company. In any event, it is noneof the business of the petitioners as under the said familyarrangement/settlement the said company, the management, controlthereof as well as the properties, assets and income solely andexclusively belong to the Bazzardev Sadh Group and the GyandevSadh Group have no right, title or interest of any nature whatsoever inrespect of the same. When the property was given on licence to theRespondent No. 8, the same was appropriately recorded in theminutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors.8. The Learned Senior Counsel further submitted thatpetitioner admitted at para 2.5 of the petition that the R1 is a familybusiness and quasi partnership between the Petitioner No.1 familyand Respondent No.2 family. The family settlement dated 30 thAugust, 2004 and 11 th Sept., 2004 are binding upon all the parties. Itis also pertinent to note that all the properties/assets reflected in thefamily settlement have been purchased out of a common pool offunds/assets jointly owned by the Sadh Family.CP 15/2008P ExportsOn this point he