Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2013 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 367 - BOMBAY HIGH COURTOppression and mismanagement - petition filed by minority group shareholders seeking to restrain appellants from holding extraordinary meeting for deletion of article 57 of Articles of Association - That EOGM was not convened but later was conducted and resolution for deletion of article 57 was passed - Respondents sought to amend company petition to introduce a challenge to conduct of EOGM deleting article 57 - CLB by impugned order permitted amendment of company petition - Petition filed by the respondent No. 2 under sections 397 and 398 itself became infructuous as the cause of action had ceased to exist - Whether CLB rightly exercised its direction in allowing amendment to petition filed under sections 397 and 398? – Held that:- On perusal of the impugned order passed by the CLB allowing company application filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 seeking amendment to company petition, it is clear that the CLB has rendered a finding that the application for amendment was allowed for determination of the issues between the parties and for the purpose of framing issues for avoiding multiplicity of litigations. The CLB stated that the proposed amendment will not in any way fundamentally change the nature and character of the applicants case in the company petition and no prejudice would be caused to the appellants if the amendments were allowed for proper, effective and just adjudication of the matter. The CLB has permitted the appellants to file counter affidavits within three weeks on receipt of the amended company petition. The CLB has also rendered a finding that the company petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has not become infructuous. Company petition fairly depicts that the challenge in the said petition was not restricted to the extraordinary general meeting dated 10-11-2010 but was also against any such meeting in future that might be held for same or similar purposes. By application for amendment filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 the applicants had prayed for amendment of the petition under sections 397 and 398 and to bring on record the subsequent events and development during the pendency of the company petition. It is not in dispute that the company petition is pending before CLB. The CLB has exercised its discretionary power to allow the amendment to the petition filed under sections 397 and 398 by permitting the original applicants to place on record subsequent events so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation and has rendered finding that the amendment would not constitutionally or fundamentally change the nature and character of the applicant's case in company petition and that no prejudice would be caused to the appellants.Thus amendment as allowed by the CLB is upheld as no prejudice would be caused to the appellants in any manner.
|