TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at it will not be possible to provide inspection of the documents from the date of inception, when the company failed to provide inspection or supply of copies, he files Petitions u/s. 163 or sec. 219 of the Companies Act, 1956. If any company says copies are provided as sought by the Petitioner, he will start arguing for exemplary costs for not providing inspection in the period mentioned in the statute. Since this Bench has noticed that he is not a qualified person u/s. 163 to seek inspection, this Bench hereby dismisses all these 62 Petitions by imposing cost of ₹ 1000/- each in every TCP - TCP. Nos. 25 to 45/2012, TCP. Nos. 48 to 69/2012 & TCP. Nos. 93-111/2012 - - - Dated:- 7-11-2016 - B.S.V. Prakash Kumar and V. Nallasenapathy, JJ. COMMON ORDER The Petitioner filed these Petitions u/s. 163 of the Companies Act, 1956 against the Respondent Companies in the respective Company Petitions seeking identical reliefs in all the Company Petitions for direction to the given Respondent Companies to provide copies of statutory Registers of the company to the Petitioner i.e. copy of full Register of Member, Annual Return of 2008-09 and 2009-10, and for exemplary costs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rn, this Petitioner filing cases against the company. Since these averments other than statements in relation to this matter not being relevant, they have not been dealt with in this order. This Petitioner filed rejoinders to the replies filed by these companies saying that the he is not obliged to disclose the reason as to why he requires this voluminous information, he says that every member has right to seek copies of the Register of Member u/s. 163 of the Companies Act 1956. As to the allegation against the Petitioner that he is a chronic litigant and in the habit of filing cases, the Petitioner says that it will not tantamount to denial of his right of seeking supply of copies of documents as enumerated u/s. 163 of the Companies Act, 1956. As this Petitioner also, like the Respondent, has given long chequered history about filing cases against each other, however, these facts not being relevant for adjudication of these Petitions, for the sake of brevity, this Bench has not dealt with those facts separately. The Respondents' side, who is equally resilient, filed sub-rejoinder denying the various facts come in the rejoinder filed by the Petitioner. To prove that this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on by NCLT, therefore, sought for dismissal of the same holding that NCLT has no subject matter jurisdiction. On this maintainability issue, this Bench passed an elaborate order on the next day i.e., 27.9.2016, holding that the issue in these Petitions is amenable to the jurisdiction of NCLT regarding the acts that happened before new Act come into force, thereby this Bench need not reiterate the reasons given in the said order. For having this Bench held that those Petitions are maintainable and ripen for adjudication, this Bench has taken up hearing to decide these Petitions on merits. Of course, the Petitioner who on that day orally agreed to make his submissions on merits on the next day to the day he argued on maintainability in the event this Bench would decide the maintainability point against him. But, on the contrary, on the next day, i.e., on 27.9.2016, this Petitioner was not present he sent some authorized person with a long e-mail saying that he needs 60 days to argue the Petitions on merits and by taking up one case after another. Though this Petitioner has resiled from the undertaking given to argue these matters on the following day, this Bench posted all thes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the parties or any of them fail to appear, the Court may proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed in that behalf by Order IX or make such other order a it thinks fit. [Explanation, - Where the evidence or a substantial portion of the evidence of any party fails to appear on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the Court may, in its discretion proceed with the case as if such party were present], [the above Explanation has been inserted by Act 104 of 1976, S.68 (w.e.f. 1.2.1977)] 3. Court may proceed notwithstanding either party fails to produce evidence, etc. - Where any party to a suit to whom time has been granted fails to produce his evidence, or to cause the attendance of his witnesses, or to perform any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which time has been allowed, [the Court may, notwithstanding such default, - (a) if the parties are present, proceed to decide the suit forthwith; or (b) if the parties are, or any of them is, absent, proceed under rule 2.] On comprehensive reading of above two Rules and also order 9 of CPC, it is evident that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as asked copy of Register of Members and Annual of Return for the years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 from each company and for exemplary costs for inspection being denied to him. To which the Respondent Counsel has categorically submitted that on 28.5.2012, these companies forwarded copies of Annual reports for the years 2008-09 and 2009-10 but whereas this Petitioner stated in his rejoinders that the Respondents provided incomplete copies of Register of Members. The Counsel on behalf of the Respondents submits that this Petitioner filed 62 TCPs against Reliance Industries Ltd. and its subsidiary group companies under this section of law, on seeing such large number of Petitions, in order not to get into unnecessary litigations, the Respondent companies, on 28.5.2012 furnished copies of the Register of Members up to 31.3.2012 and copies of the Annual Returns of 2008-09 and 2009-10, in spite of it, this Petitioner has not withdrawn these petitions against these companies, still hanging on this litigation saying that copies sent to him are incomplete. The Counsel submits this Petitioner is not even a shareholder in any of these subsidiary companies of Reliance Industries Ltd. and Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... persons informed. It is not a fundamental right available to everybody. It is a right limited to the person connected to the company not to the people having no interest in the company. Moreover, this Petitioner has nowhere stated what is the injury he is likely to sustain in case copies of the documents are not given to him. Maybe because of this reason, the statute has categorically stated the Register shall remain open to person mentioned in section 163, but when it comes to the CLB granting relief, the discretion is given to CLB whether to grant such relief or not by saying the Tribunal may also, by order compel immediate instructions or direct for supply of copies . This Petitioner nowhere stated that what for he required these copies of documents. In most of the Petitions, he asked inspection of documents of the company since inception of that company u/s. 163. If sections 163 and 164 are the sections following after Annual Returns chapter and preceding the chapter of Meetings and Proceedings, on seeing the placement of this chapter in between the chapter of Annual Returns and the chapter of Meetings and Proceedings, it is evident that the members and debenture holders and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
