Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2017 (11) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1338 - Tri - Companies LawPetitioners eligibility to file Company Petition under section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956 - perentage of share holding - Held that:- Section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956 says that petition under section 397 or 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 can be made by not less than one hundred members of the Company or not less than one-tenth of the total members of the company. In the case on hand, admittedly, petitioners are having only 0.001% of shareholding of the first respondent company. As per the register of the first respondent company there are 13 shareholders as on the date of filing of original petition. Therefore, the sole petitioner who filed CP is not at all eligible to file this petition. Whether interveners can be permitted to implead as petitioners? - Held that:- It is settled law that petitioner must have the consent of the required members or the members having required percentage of shareholding as on the date of the filing of the petition and it must be there by the date the petition was filed. Subsequent consent by other members or subsequent adding of other members do not fulfil the eligibility criteria laid down in section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956. Therefore, application made by the interveners to implead themselves as petitioners and make the petitioner eligible to file petition under section 397 is nothing but an afterthought. If, really the interveners have got any cause to file a case of oppression and mismanagement, they would have joined hands with the petitioner before filing this petition. Section 399 says that as on the date of filing the petition, criteria prescribed in that section must be fulfilled. Therefore, there are no merits in the intervening application.
|