Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2019 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1106 - HC - Companies LawWinding Up - Oppression and mismanagement - Company Judge has rejected the Company Petition at the threshold itself relying on Section 443(2) that relief's of oppression and mismanagement u/s 397 and 398 as well as winding up u/s 433(f) are sought which in the jurisdiction of Company Law Board - scope of Contributory - It was contended that the petitioner in the Company Petition is not a contributory as defined u/s 428 who alone can maintain a company petition u/s 439(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 1956 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner in the Company Petition asserts that he is a contributory of S.N.D.P.Yogam which is a non-trading company to which the Companies Act, 1956 does apply. Clause (4) of the Memorandum of Association of the S.N.D.P.Yogam speaks both of 'liability' as well as 'shares' making it ambiguous warranting an adjudication as to its constitution. The Memorandum of Association does not give any indication of S.N.D.P.Yogam being a company limited by guarantee. A composite company petition of the nature filed is perfectly maintainable and this Court had the jurisdiction to grant the relief of winding up at the time of its preferment. We shall not be misunderstood as holding that a case for winding up the company has been made out though the impugned judgment to the extent it holds that this Court lacks jurisdiction is unsustainable. The Company Petition remitted to the Company Judge for disposal - impugned judgement set aside - Company appeal allowed.
|