Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2009 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (3) TMI 574 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYWhether a shareholder of a company has no locus standi to maintain a petition for reliefs under section 163 of the Companies Act if he is also a Director of the company? Whether the Company Law Board has the power and jurisdiction in a petition for reliefs under sections 163, 621 or 629 of the Companies Act to advise the Registrar of Companies to take necessary action as per law in the event of the Petitioner in a petition for reliefs under section 163 making an application under section 629 of the said Act? Whether the Company Law Board on finding that a company has not been given inspection as required by section 163 has the power or jurisdiction to advise the Registrar of Companies to initiate prosecution proceedings against the company for contravention under section 163 of the Companies Act? Held that:- From the judgment of the Company Law Board, it appears that all the facts and circumstances have not been considered while coming to the conclusion that the company is in fact in possession of the records and that the Petitioner is not in possession of the same. This is probably because the learned Member had decided ultimately not to pass any orders under section 163 either directing the company to give inspection or rejecting the Petitioner’s application for the same. Mr. Sathe stated that the company is in possession of the reconstructed record for the period prior to February 2007 and the original record for the period after February 2007. He stated that the Petitioner may take inspection of the same at any time. The Petitioner is at liberty to do so without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the petition before the Company Law Board.The Appeal is, therefore, allowed. The order and judgment of the Company Law Board is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Company Law Board for a fresh decision.
|