Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + Tri Companies Law - 2020 (5) TMI Tri This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 131 - Tri - Companies LawOppression and Mismanagement - restoration of status of management committee - whether the petitioner are members of the company or not? - HELD THAT:- The respondents have filed Form 21A, dated November 21, 2012, September 30, 2013, September 30, 2014, June 16, 2015, September 2, 2016 with the Registrar of Companies by duly enclosing list of members of the company. By perusal of the lists of members enclosed, we found that the names of petitioners are not found in these lists. It is also relevant to point out here that the minutes of the annual general meeting held on November 21, 2012 shows that there are 8 (eight) constituent/invitees attended, which included the second and third petitioners apart from Mr. Srinivasan. Therefore, the first petitioner ceased to be member and second the third petitioners are not all members of the company. The second and third petitioners are on par with Mr. Subhas Bhosle, Rev. Sunil Dandge, who are petitioners along with the present petitioners in the earlier litigation - the contention of the first petitioner that he cannot be removed by the company, as per extant articles of association of the company, is not tenable and baseless. And the company is entitled to remove any member for misconduct, mismanagement on the part of a member. Therefore, the annual general meeting held on November 21, 2012 has rightly removed the first petitioner from the membership as per law. So far as the contention of the respondents that, that the issue became final on rejection of earlier company petition by the then Company Law Board and thus it became final and the instant company petition is not maintainable, since the Company Law Board has rejected the case by granting liberty to the petitioner to file fresh company petition in accordance with law. The petitioners are not the members of the company and thus they have no locus standi to maintain the main company petition for the alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement made in the company petition. Therefore, the main company petition is liable to be rejected as not maintainable and thus no necessity to consider various contentions raised by the petitioners - application rejected as not maintainable.
|