9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioners 1 to 3 and respondents 2 to 4 promoted the company, so also the shareholders. The main object of incorporating the company was to carry on the business of generation of electrical power by conventional and non-conventional means like thermal, solar, wind, bio-mass and hydel; to develop and accumulate electrical power at the place contemplated by the Licence obtained from the Government and to transmit, distribute and supply such power. Disputes arose between the shareholders. Therefore, Dr. Srikanth R. Shinnur and four others filed a petition under Sections 397 & 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 alleging various acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... office from "Shushruth", Dr. Sinnur Building, Vidyanagar, Shahapur - 585 223, Gulbarga District to "Laxminagar, Shahapur - 585 223, Gulbarga District is illegal and against the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. (f) Declare that the Charge created over the whole of the movable properties of the Company by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for Rs.380 lac with the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited, New Delhi - 110 003 is illegal and void. (g) Declare that the petitioners are entitled to get allotment of new shares to the extent of their respective payment made to the Company if the authorized share capital of the company has been increased as per the provisions of the Compani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estrictions passed there at (ordinary and special) for amendment of MOA & AOA for increasing the authorized share capital of company from Rs. 10 lac to Rs. 20 lac and allotment of majority shares to R2 himself is declared as illegal and void and the resolutions are not binding on the company. (2) The change of registered office of the company as brought out in the prayer (e) of the petition is declared illegal. (3) As the State of Karnataka and IREDA are not made parties, relief no.(f) is not allowable as such. If the loan of Rs. 380 lacs sanctioned by the IREDA to the Company has not been disbursed, the parties are at liberty to apply to IREDA New Delhi, to release the charge created on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss smoothly. In fact the entire substratum of the company is lost. Either the petitioners have to purchase the shares of the respondents or the respondents have to purchase the share of the petitioners, which order, the Company Law Board could have made. As such an order is not made, it is a fit case for this Court to pass such an order. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order. 8. From what is stated above, the share-holding of the rival factions is not in dispute. An attempt is made by the respondents, who were in management of the company to increase their share by increasing the authorized share capital of the company and allotting the shares in their favour. When an opportunity was given to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
