Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2017 (6) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 458 - Tri - Companies LawOppression and mismanagement - Whether the reduction in the shareholding of the Petitioners whereby they signed the share transfer forms and the subsequent resignation of the Petitioners from the Board of Director proves the existence of the understanding between the Respondents and the Petitioners, and whether the alleged acts of Respondents in the Petition constitute oppression against the Petitioners? - Held that:- The claims that the Petitioners have made regarding the signatures, on the share transfer forms and the resignation letters being forged, merit scarce attention; as the claims have not been substantiated with any pieces of proof because the burden of proof relating to the proving or disproving the aforementioned signatures is on the party who claims forgery. Regarding the exclusion of oral evidence in presence of documentary evidence relating to the same, Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 contemplates evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of documents which lays down that when the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained. Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 excludes evidence of any oral agreement or statement, when the terms of a contract, grant or disposition of property or any matter required by law to be in writing have been proved as per Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from its terms. The principle lays down that when the terms of any such document have been proved by the primary or secondary evidence of the document, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted. In the present petition the Petitioners have themselves contended that consequently in terms of the arrangement and understanding, ₹ 25 Lakhs was refunded to the Petitioners by the Respondents. The role of the Petitioners in running the Company and their involvement in the day-to-day affairs of the Company is also lacking and without any significance. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no case of oppression against the Petitioners and the company petition deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, the issue no. 1 of whether the reduction in the shareholding of the Petitioners whereby they signed the share transfer forms and the subsequent resignation of the Petitioners from the Board of Directors, prove the existence of the understanding, is decided in affirmative in favour of the Respondents. Furthermore, the issue whether the alleged acts of Respondents in the present Petition constitute oppression against the Petitioners, is decided in negative. Therefore, the subsequent acts of the Petitioners thereby proved the existence of the understanding between the Respondents and the Petitioners and furthermore after careful consideration of the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case, the Tribunal is of the opinion that there is no proof of any acts of oppression committed against the Petitioners.
|