Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2018 (5) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 734 - Tri - Companies LawOppression and mismanagement - Whether the prime property of the company was sold to R6 and R7 for lesser value than the original value for which it was purchased? - Held that:- As per the sale deed dated 14.07.2000, the sale consideration was ₹ 9.85,400/- which is the registered value and subsequently the same property was purchased by the R6 and R7 for ₹ 21,22,500/- which is more than the registered value. The learned Counsel for R1, R2 and R4 rightly contended that the registered value of consideration alone has to be taken into consideration and hold that P1 being the Director of the Company failed to attend her duties in this regard. Answer the issue No 1 in negative. Whether the property situated at Pudukkudi South Village, Thanjavur district has been sold by undervaluing the same comparing with the similarly situated land? - Held that:- Learned Counsel for R1, R2 and R4 has brought to the notice that the survey No’s of the land of the Pudukudi South village and the other compared property are totally different. Therefore, considering the location of the lands, I hold that petitioners have not substantiated that the said land was sold for a lesser value and therefore, answer the issue No. 2 is also in negative. Whether the R2 to R4 are disqualified under section 274(1)(g) of the Companies Act, 1956? - Held that:- It is on record that the Company has filed the balance sheets as at 31.03.2001 and 31.03.2002 and due to the present litigation could not conduct any AGM except the AGM conducted as per the orders of the CLB. If it is taken that the provisions of section 274(l)(g) is applicable, it is equally applicable to the P1 who is still continuing as director of the Company. In view of the legal provisions I am inclined to answer this issue in negative. Whether the R2’s appointment as director is valid and whether she is empowered to sell the property of the Company? - Held that:- R2 is empowered to sell the property particularly when the company itself in the business of real estate and for every genuine sale transaction she need not obtain the permission of the shareholders. In view of my above observations this issue is answered in affirmative. It is the duty of the Tribunal to see the paramount interest of the Company and the disputes between the parties should not affect the functioning of the Company. The case laws referred by the learned Counsel for R1, R2 and R4 squarely apply to the present case in hand whereas the case laws referred by the learned Counsel for the petitioners are not supporting, for the reasons that the facts and circumstances of the present case are otherwise. Since the petitioners have failed to make out any case of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the R1 Company, the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the petition is dismissed
|