Marpol_Pvt_Ltd_CA_143_2010 - Company Law Board Mumbai Bench

24Panandikar and they came to know in the month of September 2010.The photo copy of the will which is titled as Public Testament is inhand written and some of the pages are not able to read and not able tounderstand its contents. The Respondents have strongly objectedrelying upon the will by the applicant trust on the ground that theapplicant has not produced the original will for their inspection in spiteof repeated requests and also contended that the will has not beenprobated and is not admissible in evidence as per the provisions of theIndian Succession Act. I do not want to go into the validity and itsveracity of the will at this stage in view of the reason that I am notdeciding the aspect of the entitlement of the will or deciding any issueson the basis of the will. Without making any observations with regardto the will, it is apparent from the statement of the applicant itself thatthe will is dated 30.09.1993 and the applicant seeking remedy out ofthe will in the year 2010 is belated. So far as on the merits of theimpleadment of the applicant in CP No.72 of 2008 is concerned, it isan admitted fact that the applicant is not a member of the company andthe application is filed in the year 2010 on the basis of will dated30.09.1993 claiming that the trust is entitled to the shares of thecompany belonging to the late Mr. Atmaram Pai Panandikar. Theapplicant has not given any cogent reasons for seeking impleadment tothe main petition. From the averment of the applicant I do not see anyground or reason to allow the applicant to the main petition. MereCA No.143 of 2010 in CP 72 of 2008M/s. Marpol Pvt. Ltd.24