9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 811X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The applicant is a real estate developer. 2. The company petition is filed by respondent No. 1 under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, alleging oppression and mismanagement by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 6 seeking to : (1) set aside sale deeds dated December 9, 2005, December 20, 2005 and July 21, 2007 executed by the company in favour of respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 6 ; (2) set aside all the memoranda of understanding, agreements etc. in relation to the joint development of 10 acres of company's land ; and (3) direct investigation into the affairs of the company, etc. 3. Respondent No. 2 company has been promoted on March 31, 1998 by the father of respondent No. 1 (the petitioner in the company petition), respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent No. 7 that the factory land and building have not been alienated and only the vacant land had been partially subjected to alienation and partially to joint development for the sole purpose to discharge decade-old liabilities and to facilitate rehabilitation, as permitted under clauses 4, 21 and 22 of the memorandum of association of the company. It is pointed out by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 7 that even Rs. 2 crores received as advance by respondents Nos. 5 and 6 under the joint development agreement (JDA) has been utilised to discharge the liabilities of the company. They contended that everything was done in the best interest of the company, when the petitioner (respondent No. 1 in company application) kept away from the man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licant. It is pointed out by the applicant that respondent No.1 (Dr. Balasundaram) is not prejudicially affected as he could work out his remedies vis-a-vis respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 7 as the 36 per cent. of superstructure to be constructed will fall to the share of the owners, and the 36 per cent. of the land area still retained by them. The third respondent (Venkatesh) also filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner's minority interest will be adequately safeguarded, since the company would be getting corresponding value of super built up area, and the cash flow arising out of the JDA will also accrue to the benefit of the company. Learned counsel for the company and the rival groups submitted that they have fully complied wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
