Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2020 (1) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1272 - Tri - Companies LawMaintainability of petition - Oppression and mismanagement - petition filed by a non-member of a Section - 8 Company namely Church of South India Trust Association (R1/CSITA) against CSITA and 10 other Respondents - section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013. Whether this CP is maintainable for it has been filed by a non-member of the company - Whether Sec. 241 application is maintainable with regard to the affairs of the Sec. 8 Companies? - HELD THAT:- The profit concept not being present, at least to the extent of academic interest of member is concerned actions with regard to the affairs of Section 8 Company; it cannot be called as prejudicial at least to the members. As to prejudice against the company, if such allegation is made, there must be a material specifying each action and the effect thereof. In this case, except general and omni bus allegations, no specific allegations are made indicating x, y and z persons have indulged in specific actions with particulars, and therefore the management of a company elected through a multi layer arrangement with approval of 4.5 million church members or perhaps communicant members cannot be simply reversed - The Petitioner is one of the communicant members, even if 24 Consenters are taken into consideration; they are part of 4.5 Million of the church members. The church members at the parish level elect and send delegates to Dioceses, and Synod members. Synod members will elect members of CSITA. This being the arrangement, there is no scope to assume that this Petitioner or 24 Consentors to this Petitioner or 200 members alleged to have attended the alleged General Meeting on 16.01.2016 can be equated with members of CSITA who have reached to CSITA passing through two layers of election. Therefore this Company Petition is not at all maintainable. Whether a person on his own holds meetings and elections thereafter seek an imprimatur of this Bench to the actions of him? - HELD THAT:- In this case, it is not the case of the Petitioner that either he himself or the consenters are the members of R1 company, his case is only that they are Church Members (Parish members) therefore since they have been seeing that the company properties are being alienated for the personal gain by committing fraud, they should be allowed to hold meeting. Another point is, since the election was not being held even after completion of two years, the Petitioner and his consenters gave a notice for holding a meeting. Whenever such notice is given, as per the procedure, even it is not mentioned a notice u/s. 100, it is imperative to construe that notice falls within the ambit of Sec. 100. in this case, these people are not even entitled to give such requisition notice - The Petitioner has gone to the extent of setting up letterhead of the company to prepare a resolution showing as if a committee has been constituted to R1 Company. Basic requirement to interfere with the Indoor Management of any company is that the person shall be either shareholder or member of the company. This Petitioner is neither of them - there are no merit in the argument of the Petitioner saying that the Managing Committee elected by the so called 250 members as valid. Whether any case has been made out u/s. 241 of the Companies Act, 2013 against the Respondents herein? - HELD THAT:- If at all any prejudice is caused, ultimately it has to be seen whether such action could be treated as a just and equitable ground for winding up of the company. Even if action is unfair and prejudicial to any of the members, for passing a relief under Sec. 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, second condition in the twin condition to pass reliefs i.e. just and equitable ground for winding up shall be proved. There is not a whisper over this point in the Petition. By filing one or other application, this Petitioner has prolonged this litigation so far - Every action that is falling under Sec. 213 or any unlawful actions falling under any of the companies act cannot be straight away considered as an action attracting the provisions of Sec. 241 of the Companies, Act, 2013. The checklist and the measurement to bring it within the ambit of Sec. 241 are altogether different, here the Petitioner has miserably failed to establish any case u/s. 241 of the Companies Act, 2013. Petition dismissed.
|