before the company law board - Company Law Board Mumbai Bench

More documents

Recommendations

Info

20month of January, 2008 and the petitioners have filed CP Nos.15, 16and 17 of 2008 before this Bench in the month of May, 2008. Afterfiling of the petitions the petitioners’ solicitors and the respondents’solicitors have addressed letters to each other. The petitioners havesought inspection of the documents vide their letters dated 23rd June,2008 and 26 th June, 2008 addressed to the Company. The respondentsthrough their solicitors have replied vide para 10 wherein it is statedthat “in the circumstances aforesaid kindly let us know how youclaim to make or maintain any request for inspection of documentspertaining to the said Company? After receipt of your response weshall thereafter deal with your request on merits.” From thecorrespondence it is seen that there is no clear intention of therespondents to provide inspection of the documents to the petitioner.It is an admitted fact that the petitioners are 50% shareholders of theCompany and they are entitled to inspect the records and registers inthe capacity as shareholders and directors. Therefore, it is herebydirected the Company to provide the inspection of registers andrecords to the petitioners in accordance with law. The petitioners arealso entitled to the notices for the Board and General Meetings as perthe Articles of Association and the law. Accordingly the issue isanswered.Now I deal with the issue No.3CP 15/2008P Exports
21CP 15/2008P ExportsThe respondents in their counter dated 18 th July, 2008heavily relied upon that under a family arrangement arrived atbetween the 1 st petitioner and the 2 nd respondent on 30 th August, 2004and 11 th Sept., 2004, according to which the properties were dividedbetween them. The respondents enclosed the said family arrangementalong with their reply. The family arrangement dated 30 th August,2004 wherefrom it shows that the petitioner No.1 and RespondentNo.2 and solicitor and Chartered Accountants present and shown theimmovable properties divided and distributed between the petitionerNo.1 and Respondent No.2. The family arrangement dated 11 th Sept.,2004, is in continuation of the earlier arrangement dated 30 th August,2004. However, it is captioned as Sadh Family Business Separationand signed by the petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2. Thepetitioners have not mentioned about the said family arrangement inthe petition and no relief to that effect has been sought. Therespondents in their reply stressed that the family arrangement hasbeen substantially implemented and pursuant to such implementationthe possession of the property held in the name of the 1 st petitionerhas been handed over to the respondents and the respondentsappropriating the income and profits. It is also stated that since thepetitioners failed and neglected and delayed in completing theremaining part of the implementation, the respondents filed Suit beingNo.1937 of 2008 before the High Court of Bombay. It is further
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 and 18: 172) Whether the respondents denied
Page 19: 19admission either denial or admiss
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?