Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2019 (7) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1639 - Tri - Companies LawDeclaration of Power of Attorney executed in favour of R3 as null and void - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the Petitioner and R2 being Shareholders and Directors of RI Company, on 04.09.2014, they passed board resolution authorizing R2 to execute Power of Attorney in favour of R3 authorising him to alienate the asset of RL In pursuance of it, R2 executed power of attorney in favour of R3 authorising him to alienate the property of RI Company, accordingly R3 executed sale deeds in favour of third parties basing on the power conferred upon him as reflected in Power of Attorney dated 30.10.2014 to alienate the property of RI company to the intending purchasers - Though this document was executed in the year 2014, until before initiating this proceeding in the year 2018, no proceeding was initiated by this petitioner against her husband for nullification of the Resolution both of them passed and the power of attorney executed by her husband in favour of R3. It is only in the year 2018, this company petition was filed for nullification of Power of Attorney executed in favour of R3 basing on the resolution passed on 04.09.2014. The Honourable High Court held that the sale deeds executed through Power of Attorney in force cannot be declared nullified through filing Writ Petition - It appears till date neither the Petitioner nor R2 contested the order of Madurai Bench of High Court of Madras in respect to the observations made saying that execution of Power of Attorney is not in dispute. This Petitioner has not even asked any relief for nullification of the Resolution dated 4.9.2014 in this company petition, then the question of conducting trial would not arise, moreover this petitioner has not placed any prima facie material to believe that R2 fabricated the Resolution dated 04.09.2014. Therefore, it is hereby held that the petitioner counsel has tried to argue the case beyond the pleadings and the relief sought bv the petitioner. Courts are not expected to stretch case beyond the pleadings and reliefs sought in a case. When a point is not legally tenable and when relief is not sought, Court is not obliged to get swayed by the oral arguments of a counsel. Petition dismissed.
|