Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2014 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 1297 - HC - Companies LawMismanagement, oppression and misappropriation - grievance of the Plaintiff briefly put is that Defendant No. 2 has obtained and/or applied for several patents in his own name whereas the patents ought to have been obtained and/or applied for in the name of Defendant No. 1 - Held that:- Plaintiff though holding 12% of the shares of the Company, is all alone in this action particularly when the other minority shareholders, who collectively own about 13% of the shares of Defendant No. 1, are against the action and do not consider it in best interest of Defendant No. 1. Therefore, such a Plaintiff should not be entitled to maintain this derivative action or any relief on this ground. It is the Plaintiff's case that the patents have been wrongly applied for or obtained by Defendant No. 2 though he is not entitled to the same and in fact it is Defendant No. 1 who is entitled to the same but if we accept the Plaintiff's contention then any person, it may include the Plaintiff himself, who is a competitor as explained later, or any other competitor may apply for revocation/cancellation of the patent. If the patent is cancelled then Defendant No. 1 also will not be able to use the patents, which it is now using, royalty free. It will cause a tremendous loss to the Company-Defendant No. 1. Therefore, this action can never be considered to be in the interest of Defendant No. 1 Plaintiff being a competitor with the seemingly malicious intent against Defendant No. 1, cannot be believed when the Plaintiff says that the derivative action is bona-fide and in the best interest of Defendant No. 1. On this ground also the Plaintiff cannot maintain this action and reliefs sought by the Plaintiff cannot be granted. In the case under consideration, the suit in the garb of a derivative action is really prompted by family hostilities and personal anger that the Plaintiff had against Defendant No. 2. In fact the Plaintiff/his mother had also filed a criminal complaint against Defendant No. 2 and the police whilst closing the case observed that having regard to her age and physical and mental state, the criminal complaint has not been filed by her (the mother) but at the instance of the Plaintiff and there appears to be a family dispute. Even previous litigations initiated by the Plaintiff is also evidence of family disputes/disputes of a personal nature now being again sought to be litigated in the garb of a derivative action. Therefore on this ground also, the Plaintiff will not be entitled to any relief as sought. It is also quite obvious that the Plaintiff having not succeeded in his earlier actions against Maharukh Murad Oomrigar, his sister and the Defendant No. 2, he is re-agitating the same points in the garb of a derivative suit.
|