before the company law board - Company Law Board Mumbai Bench

More documents

Recommendations

Info

18Company belong to the Respondent Group. The respondents in theirrejoinder to the reply filed by the defendants to the Notice of MotionNo.2487 of 2008 in Suit No.1937 of 2008 before the Hon’ble HighCourt of Bombay at para 5 wherein it was averred that “it is alsopertinent to note that all the properties/assets reflected in the familysettlement have been purchased out of a common pool of funds/assetsjointly owned by the Sadh family.” Thus the respondents clearlyadmitted that all the properties/assets have been purchased out of acommon pool of funds jointly owned by the Sadh family. Thepetitioners have filed search report dated 10 th April, 2008, it reflectsthat the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 and other twopersons are directors of the Company and 1 stCP 15/2008P Exportspetitioner andRespondent No.2 still continuing as directors. According to theshareholding pattern of the Company, the petitioners’ group holds25,000 shares and the respondents’ group holds 25,000 shares.There is no denial to this report and it further strengthens the standthat the petitioners’ group and the respondents’ group hold 50% each.Moreover the respondents have neither specifically denied noradmitted with respect to the averment made by the petitioners that theR1 Company is a family business and a quasi partnership exceptstating that in view of family arrangement the question of 50% ratiodoes not arise. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended thatthere must be clear denial in respect of pleadings, if there is no
19admission either denial or admission it amounts to admission of factsand relied upon the judgements cited supra. I agree with thesubmissions that the respondents have not denied neither admitted thefact of family business and quasi partnership. Therefore, I am of theview that the R1 Company is a family run company and the principlesof quasi partnership will apply since the petitioners and therespondents hold 50% each and there is no change in the shareholdingpattern. Accordingly the issue is answered.Now I deal with the issue No.2:CP 15/2008P ExportsThe petitioners contended that the respondents have notprovided the inspection of the records and registers to them. It is theircase that they had signed the Annual Accounts for the year ended31.3.2003 and after that the R2 has not signed any Annual Accountsfor the year ended 31 stMarch, 2004 to 2008. The respondentscontended that the petitioners are not concerned with the managementor its affairs after the family arrangement dated 30 th August, 2004 and11 th Sept., 2004. However, they sent necessary accounts to all theshareholders including the petitioners as their names continue to beshown as shareholders of the Company. The respondents along withtheir reply produced documents wherefrom it is seen that there iscorrespondence between the respondents’ solicitors and thepetitioners. It is relevant to mention that the Respondent No.2 filedCP No.6 of 2008 before the CLB Principal Bench, New Delhi in the
Page 5 and 6: 53. It is further submitted that th
Page 7 and 8: 74. Respondents have filed detailed
Page 9 and 10: 9to and have to be formally transfe
Page 11 and 12: 11remaining part of the same. The B
Page 13 and 14: 13their names continue to be shown
Page 15 and 16: 15of Chhabi Dushadh & Anr. Vs. Bhun
Page 17: 172) Whether the respondents denied
Page 21 and 22: 21CP 15/2008P ExportsThe respondent
Page 23 and 24: 23contended that the respondents al
Page 25 and 26: 25on them. On the other hand the Le
Page 27 and 28: 27vide their reply dated 13.9.2006
Page 29: 29independent valuer to value the a

before the company law board - Company Law Board Mumbai Bench

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?