Forgot password
New User/ Regiser
⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (10) TMI 330 - SUPREME COURT
Oppression and mismanagement - Whether group of minority shareholders held the requisite one-tenth of the issued share capital of the company under section 399 (1) of the Act when they filed the petitioner under sections 397 and 398?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The matter must be remanded to the Single Judge since he had also dismissed the appeals preferred by the respondents from the decision of the CLB consequent upon the dismissal of the appellants’ appeal under section 10F of the Act.
The finding of the CLB and the High Court to the effect that the petition of the appellant deserved to be rejected only because the letters of consent had not been annexed to the petition was therefore incorrect. What the CLB and the High Court should have done was to have satisfied themselves that the consent had in fact been given prior to the filing of the petition. There is nothing either in the orders of CLB or the High Court which could even remotely be construed as a rejection of the affidavits, resolution, etc. filed by Nini Srivastava to show that prior consent had in fact been obtained. We may also note the unrebutted specific averment by the petitioners to the effect that V.K. Srivastava was personally present throughout the litigation.