TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act alleging various acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the Company. At present, the second petitioner does not wish to prosecute the company petition and therefore filed an application in CA 153/2004 seeking leave of this Bench to withdrew herself from the company petition. The applicant, being a shareholder of the Company holding 150 equity shares desirous of substituting herself in the place of the second petitioner. As the applicant is aggrieved by the various acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the Company, she may be substituted in the place of the second petitioner to further prosecute the company petition. While concluding his submissions, Shri Murari poin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a petitioner to any application under Section 397 or 398 on the lines of Section 405 which explicitly envisages addition of respondents to any application under Section 397 or 398. In this connection, Shri Seshadri referred to Rule 101 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, which speaks of substitution of creditor or contributory for the original petitioner in the winding up proceedings. There is no such similar provision under Rule 88 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 for substitution of the original petitioner in the case of a petition presented under Section 397 or 398 of the Act. In the absence of any enabling provision, according to Shri Seshadri, the applicant cannot seek for substitution in the place of the original second peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r any enabling provision for substitution of any other member for the original petitioner on the lines of Section 405, for further prosecuting the petition under Section 397/398, provided there is a valid petition before the CLB. In regard to the power of substitution in a Section 397 or 398 proceeding, beneficial reference is invited to the observations made by the Delhi High Court in V.K. Mathur v. K.C. Sharma - 1987 (vol.61) CC 143, which reads as under: - ...there are ample powers in the court to permit other persons to join the petition as co-petitioners. In a proper case, the court can even permit such persons to take over the prosecution of the petition from the original petitioner and substitute themselves for him in case it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
