TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany. All these acts constitute acts of oppression and mismanagement as contended by the Petitioners on the part of Respondents. (1) The resolutions alleged to have been passed at the EGMs held on 19.03.2007 for non-recognizing the allotment of 20,00,000 shares that were allotted by the first Respondent Company on 01.03.1998 is hereby set aside with a consequential direction to the Registrar of Companies, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Hyderabad,Telangana not to take on record the Form No.23 filed by the 2nd Respondent in this regard. (2) The resolutions alleged to have been passed at the EGM, alleged to have been held on 19/03/2007 for non-recognizing the allotment of 84,99,937 shares that were allotted by the first Respondent Company on 01/04/2006 is hereby set aside with a consequential direction to the Registrar of Companies, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Hyderabad, Telangana, not to take on record the Form 23 filed by the Second Respondent in this regard; (3) The allotment of 45,00,000 shares and 84,99,937 shares that were alleged to have been allotted to the Respondent group on 19/03/2007 and 22/04/2006 respectively are hereby set aside with consequential direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Companies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad not to take on record the Form 23 filed by the Second Respondent in this regard; c. Setting aside the illegal allotment of 45,00,000 shares and 84,99,937 shares that were alleged to have been allotted to the Respondent group on 19/03/2007 and 22/04/2006 respectively and direct the Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad not to take on record the Form 2 filed by the second Respondent in this regard; d. Directing the first Respondent company to rectify the Register of Members, reinstating the names of the Petitioners and to delete the names of the Respondent group with respect to the shares alleged to have been allotted on 22/04/2006 and 19/03/2007; e. Setting aside the illegal appointment of second, third fourth, fifth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and 12th Respondents as Directors of the sixth, seventh and eighth Respondent companies and direct the Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad not to take on record the Form 32 filed by the second Respondent in this regard; f. Setting aside the illegal allotment of 40,000 shares that were alleged to have been allotted to the third and ninth Respondent in sixth, seventh and e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had to meet various political leaders of different parties and interact with them for interviews, views and discussions etc. Thus the first Respondent Company was used as a vehicle by the second Respondent to further his personal image which was already on the edifice of Sanghi name. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the family sank huge money in this company mainly to help the second Respondent s political name and career, as till then, he was an unknown person outside the family circle. (5) The second Respondent, who is a boorish braggadocio with, out of the world lifestyle tastes and a mania for authority wanted to become a full time politician and expressed his willingness to the family members, who in turn extended their valuable genuine support and encouragement to the second Respondent with a fond hope that he would spend some time and energy for furthering Sanghi s image and business interests. All the family members, including that of Petitioner group, worked together for the second Respondent to have a good political beginning and career. As a result of hard work and support extended by the family members, the second Respondent became a Member of Parliament ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 293(1) (d) of the Act and (iii) for non-recognition of 20,00,000 shares and 84,99,937 shares that were already allotted by the first Respondent company on 01.03.1998 and 01.04.2006. b. Filed form 5 on 12.04.2007 with RoC, A.P., Hyderabad in which he has made a false statement that the shareholders at the EGM held on 19.03.2007 have passed resolution authorizing increase of authorized share capital from ₹ 10.50 cores to ₹ 15 crores. c. Filed Form 2 on 06.04.2007 with RoC, A.P., Hyderabad Hyderabad, alleging that 84,99*937 shares were allotted to Respondent group by the Board of Directors at its meeting held on 22.04.2006. d. Filed Form 2 on 14.08.2007 with RoC, A.P., Hyderabad Hyderabad, alleging that 45, 00,000 additional shares were allotted to him by the Board of Directors at its meeting held on 19.03.2007. (7) It is stated that the first Respondent company did not hold any general meeting on 19.03.2007 as falsely claimed by the second Respondent in the Forms 5 and 23. The Petitioners holding 50% of the paid up capital of first Respondent Company did not receive any notice calling for any EGM on 19.03.2007 and no resolution was passed as falsely claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not with the Board of Directors. Therefore, the impugned Forms 5 and 23 are illegal and ultra vires the MOA and AOA of the Company, apart from the Company Act. The second Respondent, in the course of making an attempt to show him as a major shareholder has invented a new concept non- recognition of shares for which no provision is available under the present Companies Act, 1956. (9) The second Respondent has also filed Form 2 with RoC, Hyderabad on 06.04.2007 and 14.08.2007 claiming that the first Respondent company has issued additional 84,99,937 shares to Respondent group at the Board meeting held on 22.04.2006 and 45,00,000 shares to second Respondent himself at the Board meeting held on 19.03.2007. The first Respondent Company, being a public limited company is also governed by the provisions of section 81 of the Act. The second Respondent, while trying to allot additional shares to himself and his group, has completely failed to realize that no additional shares can be issued without the authority of the shareholders. The second Respondent has neither complied with the provisions of section 81 of the Act nor with Clause 57 of the Articles of Association, for both the all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent company had a huge balance of ₹ 21,78,49,064/- and ₹ 25,65,99,805/- respectively under the Head Sundry Debtors . The said amounts constitute almost twenty five percent of the turnovers reported in the respective financial years, which is very much abnormal in the industry of this nature. The second Respondent failed to maintain a balance between the turnover and debtors and has allowed the debtors to rise to the level of one fourth of the turnover. Also the reporting of the sundry debtors is not as per the format prescribed under schedule VI to the Act, thereby violating the provisions of section 211 of the act. (c) The second Respondent has also diverted huge amounts through loans and advances account as is evident from the balance sheet as on 31.03.2007. The balance under the head loans and advances show an amount of ₹ 5,75,48,580/-. The first Respondent company is engaged in the business of printing, publishing and circulation of newspapers and not in any financial related activities and therefore, does not warrant such a huge balance under the head loans and advances . (d) The second Respondent has also deliberately suppressed the details of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o other entities, where the Petitioners had a huge stake. The sixth Respondent Company is a company registered in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Petitioners group have huge stake in the sixth Respondent Company through the first Respondent Company. The first Respondent company has entered into few contracts with sixth Respondent company. Third Petitioner and thirteenth Respondent are the Directors of the sixth Respondent Company right from its inception and they are also in charge of the day to day affairs of the sixth Respondent Company. The second Respondent with an ulterior motive of taking control over sixth Respondent company has unauthorizedly filed the following Forms with RoC, AP to show that both the Board and the share capital are under his control. (1) Filed Form 32 on 03/06/2008 to show that second, fourth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth Respondents were appointed as Directors of sixth Respondent company w.e.f. 30/03/2005. (2) Filed Form 32 on 04/06/2008 to show that third, fifth and ninth Respondents were appointed as Directors of sixth Respondent company w.e.f. 01/04/2007. (3) Filed Form 2 on 06/06/2008 to show that 40,000 shares were allotted to third and nin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s unauthorizedly filed the following Forms with RoC, AP to show that both the Board and the share capital of the seventh and eighth Respondent companies are under his control. (1) Filed Form 32 on 05/06/2008 to show that the second fourth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth Respondents were appointed as Directors of the seventh and eighth Respondent companies w.e.f 30/09/2005. (2) Filed another Form 32 on 05/06/2008 to show that third, fifth and ninth Respondents were appointed as Directors of both the seventh and eighth Respondent companies w.e.f. 01/04/2007. (3) Filed Form 2 on 06/06/2008 to show that 40,000 shares were allotted to third and ninth Respondents at the Board meeting of both the seventh and eighth Respondent companies held on 15/05/2008. (4) Filed Form 18 on 09/06/2008 to show that the registered office of both the seventh and eighth Respondent companies have been shifted from Bank Street to Lower tank bund road w.e.f 15/05/2008. (5) It is submitted that all the above Forms were filed by the second Respondent without any authority and consent of the Board of Directors and shareholders of seventh and eighth Respondent companies. The second Respondent has no lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und but if any such an order is passed, it would unfairly prejudice the interest of members. Therefore, the Tribunal is prayed to interfere in the subject matter by passing appropriate orders as it thinks fit and just as to bring to an end the matters complained in the instant case. 3. Shri. Girish Sanghi, the second Respondent herein, has filed counter/written submissions dated 10th January 2017. The main contents as raised by him are as follows: (1) One of the important qualifications for filing a company petitions U/s 397 and 398 is that that the Petitioner should have at least 10% of the share capital of the Company as on the date of filing a petition. However, it is alleged that the Petitioners did not hold any shares in the Company as reflected in annual return for the year ended 31-03-2008. So, the claim of Petitioner that they are holdings 43.75% of the paid up capital is totally denied and the petition itself is not maintainable. (2) It is alleged by misusing digital signatures of 2nd Respondent, the Petitioners have been illegally allotted themselves of the shares in Respondent No. 1 Company. It is further alleged that the second Respondent has given his digital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 256,800 A.Y. 99-2000 ITAT Income Tax Penalty 480,000 A.Y. 99-2000 ITAT Income Tax Penalty 14,50,000 A.Y. 2003-04 CIT(A) Interest and Penalties of ₹ 57,600, ₹ 256,800 and ₹ 480,000 were dropped by the ITAT Order dated 19th December, 2007. Penalty and Penalties of ₹ 14,50,000, The Appeal No. 0374/06-07 is still pending with CIT(A) II, Hyderabad. (6) It is stated that the Petitioner are trying irrelevant issues which cannot be termed as mismanagement. In the general course of business, the business executives and General Managers working for the company are given certain powers and Managing Director will have overall superintendence on the affairs of the company. (7) It is asserted that majority shareholders (Superior printers(R6) are, Gaurav Sanghi and Ms. Aarti Sanghi) holding 99.98% shares and balance shares in the name of some Vartha employees. Moreover, the Petitioners are going beyond the scope of present litigation and they have no locus standi to question the affairs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .03.1998 and 01.04.2006 respectively, consequently to set-aside subsequent allotment of 45,00,000 shares alleged to have been allotted to the 9th Respondent and his family on 19.03.2007. They have contended as follows: The applicants are shareholders of Respondent No.8 (Spoorthi Marketing Pvt. Ltd.) which was promoted by Sanghi Family in the year 1994 with 63 equity shares of ₹ 10/- each these shares were equally divided among Sanghi family members including the first applicant (Ravi Sanghi) who acquired 9 equity shares to his credit out of 63 shares. The Respondent No.8 made an allotment of 20,00,000 equity shares of ₹ 10/- each on 01-03-1998 among Sanghi family members. Accordingly the Applicants No.1 to 4 were allotted 1,2500,000 equity shares of ₹ 10/- each and Form No.2 was also filed by the Respondent No. 8 Company with ROC, Hyderabad. On 01-04-2006, the Respondent No.8 Company made further allotment of 84,99,937 equity shares of ₹ 10/- each among Sanghi family members out of which the Applicant Nos. 1 to 3 were allotted 5,31,250 equity shares each while the 4th Applicant was allotted 5,31,187 equity shares, total 21,24,946, and the tota ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s uploaded on 05.03.2017 and the Chartered Accountant/Company Secretary also signed in Form with his Digital Signature, having kept quiet for all these years are baseless allegations of misuse. 6. Heard, Shri.M.S.Prasad along, with Shri.A.Chakrvarthy, learned counsels for the Petitioners 1,3,5 6 and Shri. P. Anil Mukharji, learned counsel for proposed Impleading Applicant, Shri. Y. Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the Petitioners No.2 4, Dr. S.V. Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the Petitioner No.4, Shri. S. Chidambaram, PCS for Respondents and Shri. Giresh Sanghi, second Respondent, party -in -person. 7. (1) The case was initially filed before the then Company Law Board, Chennai on 14th November, 2008. The CLB passed the following interim order dated 14th November, 2008. In the meanwhile, considering the apprehension expressed on behalf of Petitioners and in view of serious disputes involved in the Company petition and in the paramount interest of the Company, it is hereby directed that the Respondents will not alienate or sell any of the fixed assets held by the Company without leave of the Bench until further orders. The matter will be heard on 27.11.2008 at 2.30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) Whether two allotment of shares made on 1st March, 1998 and 1st April, 2006 are validly made as per Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company and Companies Act, 1956 or not : (2) Whether the subsequent non-recognition of above shares is in accordance with law or not : (3) Whether subsequent allotments made by the Respondent No. 1 Company under the control of second Respondent allotting all shares of the Company exclusively among the family members of second Respondent and his group leaving the Petitioners group altogether, are valid or not: (4) If so, what is the relief, the Petitioners are entitled for: 11. It is not in dispute that the first Respondent Company was originally registered as a Public Limited Company on 18th December, 1992 with Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh, and Hyderabad bearing the name of ABK PUBLICATIONS LIMITED . It was subsequently taken over by Sanghi Group represented by the Petitioner and Respondent group by acquiring all the shares that were held by the then management. During February 1998, the name of the first Respondent Company was changed as AGA PUBLICATIONS LIMITED . The main business of the Company is printing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,25,000 Mr.Gaurav Sanghi Sanghi nagar PO Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, AP-501 5114-3-352, Bank Street, Hyderabad 1,25,000 Mr.Ashish Sanghi Sanghi nagar PO Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, AP-501 5114-3-352, Bank Street, Hyderabad 1,25,000 TOTAL SHARES 20,00,000 This form is duly signed digitally by the Managing Director (the Second Respondent) by declaring that he has been authorized by the Board of Director s resolution dated 01.03.1998 and it was also certified by Mr. Jayant Palnitkar, Company Secretary/Chartered Accountant. Declaration: To the best of my knowledge and belief, the information given in this form and its attachments is correct and complete. I have been authorized by the Board of Directors resolutions dated 01/03/1998. To be digitally signed by Managing Director or Director or Manager of the Company Gireesh Kumar Sanghi Certificate: It is hereby certified that I have verified the above particulars from the books of account and records of M/s AGA PUBLICATIONS PRIV ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,31,250 Shri Gireesh Sanghi Sanghinagar PO Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, AP-501 511 4-3-352, Bank Street, Hyderabad 5,31,250 Shri Alka Sanghi Sanghinagar PO Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, AP-501 511 4-3-352, Bank Street, Hyderabad 5,31,257 Mr.Gaurav Sanghi Sanghinagar PO Hayatnagar Mandal,Ranga Reddy District, AP-501 511 4-3-352, Bank Street, Hyderabad 5,31,250 Mr.Ashish Sanghi Sanghinagar PO Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, AP-501 511 4-3-352, Bank Street, Hyderabad 5,31,250 TOTAL SHARES 84,99,937 It is duly digitally signed by the Managing Director, Girish Sanghi (2nd Respondent), by declaring that he has been duly authorized by the Board of Director s Resolution, dated 1stApril,2006 and further certified by Mr.Jayant Palnit Kar, Chartered Account/Company Secretary. The declaration given in the said column is as follows: Declaration: To the best of my knowledge and belief, the information given in this form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50,00,000 3 Gaurav Sanghi 1-144, P.O.Sanghi Nagar, Ranga Reddy Dist Andhra Pradesh- 501 501 01-03-1998 5,00,000 50,00,000 TOTAL 20,00,000 2,00,00,000 6. NON RECOGNITIN OF RETURN OF ALLOTMENT FILED ON 05-03-2007 WITH SHARE ALLOTMENT LIST DATED 01.04.2006: RESOLVED THAT statement showing allotment of 84,99,937 Equity Shares of ₹ 10/- each to the names, addresses and number of shares allotted pursuant to the Board Resolution dated 1st April, 2006, which was E-filed along with Form No.2, without the proper authorization of the Board, by misuse of the Digital Signature of the Chairman Managing Director on 5th March, 2007 be and is hereby not recognized and the factual allotment made by the Board of Directors vide resolution dated 22-04-2006 are as under: S.No Name Address of Allottee Date of Allotment No.of Equity Shares Allotted Amount (Rs) 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30,00,000 22-04-2006 9 Ms.Aarti Sanghi 10,00,000 22-04-2006 TOTAL 105,00,000 15. As per the reply of second Respondent dated 10th July, 2017, it is not the case of second Respondent that he has lost his digital signature or he has lodged any complaint with any authorities for misuse of his signature. But his only un- tenable contention is that he has given his digital signature to his elder brother, who has mis-used the signature. In the absence of any proof that his signature is misused by his elder brother, it is not at all tenable of such allegation. Moreover, all the allotments made subsequently are exclusively to family of second Respondent and few others. The way the second Respondent allotted all shares to his family members and his group by non-recognizing the shares already to all the members of Sanghi family, including second Respondent and his group clearly shows that the allegation that he has given his digital signature to his elder brothe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the authentication data were, at the time of signing, under the control of the signatory or, as the case may be, the authenticator and of no other person; (c) any alteration to the electronic signature made after affixing such signature is detectable; (d) any alteration to the information made after its authentication by electronic signature is detectable; and (e) it fulfils such other conditions which may be prescribed. (3) The Central Government may prescribe the procedure for the purpose of ascertaining whether electronic signature is that of the person by whom it is purported to have been affixed or authenticated. (4) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, add to or omit any electronic signature or electronic authentication technique and the procedure for affixing such signature from the Second Schedule: Provided that no electronic signature or authentication technique shall be specified in the Second Schedule unless such signature or technique is reliable. (5) Every notification issued under sub-section (4) shall be laid before each House of Parliament.] Section-4: Legal recognition of electronic records:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time being in force, such requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied if such filing issue, grant, receipt or payment, as the case may be, is effected by means of such electronic form as may be prescribed by the appropriate Government. (2) The appropriate Government may, for the purpose of sub-section (1), by rules, prescribe- (a) the manner and format in which such electronic records shall be filed, created or issued; (b) the manner or method of payment of any fee or charges for filing, creation or issue any electronic record under clause (a). Section 4 to 42 deals with dues of subscribers and these sections extracted below: Section-40: Generating key pair:- Where any Digital Signature Certificate, the public key of which corresponds to the private key of that subscriber which is to be listed in the Digital Signature Certificate has been accepted by a subscriber, [***] the subscriber shall generate [that key] pair by applying the security procedure. Section 40A: Duties of subscriber of Electronic Signature Certificate:- In respect of Electronic Signature Certificate the subscriber shall perform such duties as may be prescribed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Digital Signature Certificate should be suspended in public interest. (2) A Digital Signature Certificate shall not be suspended for a period exceeding fifteen days unless the subscriber has been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter. (3) On suspension of a Digital Signature Certificate under this section, the Certifying Authority shall communicate the same to the subscriber. 17. In the light of above provisions of the IT Act, it is to be examined whether the allegations made by the 2nd Respondent that the Digital Signature was misused by the Petitioners is tenable or not. Admittedly, the digital signature of the 2nd Respondent was also certified by the Chartered Accountant/Company Secretary. It is not the case of the 2nd Respondent that he has made any complaint about the misuse of his digital signature. On the contrary, as per the provisions of Information and Technology Act, 2000 as extracted above, it should be kept under his custody and control with relevant keys and if any mis-use or loss of it, he has to report to Competent authority for suspension of it. Moreover, the Chartered Accountant/Company Secretary, who has attested did not choose to fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are going to be deprived. Even as per the notice dated 15.02.2007, it is admitted that the allotment of shares were made on 01.03.1998 and 01.04.06. As stated by the learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner, there is no provision under law or under the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Respondent No. 1 Company to de-recognize the shares, once allotted and it amounts to reduction of share capital, which require to follow a lengthy procedure The contention of the 2nd Respondent that his Digital Signature was misused by the 1st Petitioner is not at all tenable in the light of the Digital Signature held by the 2nd Respondent is still under the custody of 2nd Respondent, who has admittedly transacted subsequent transactions with same Digital Signature. As stated supra, if any deviation of use of digital signature takes place, it is the duty of subscriber to bring it to notice of concerned authorities for appropriate action. The second Petitioner has admittedly not followed the procedure prescribed under Information and Technology Act, 2000, and also registered FIR with the police authorities for the alleged mis-use of his digital signature. Therefore, it is to be held that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... available an Electronic Signature Certificate for any fraudulent or unlawful purpose, he shall be punished with imprisonment up to two years, or with fine up to one lakh rupees, or with both. Rule 28 29 of Information and Technology (Certifying Authorities) Rules, 2000 deals with compromising and revoked of Digital Signature Certificate. Rules 28 29 reads as under: Rule-28: Compromise of Digital Signature Certificate: Digital Signature Certificate in operational use that become compromised shall be revoked in accordance with the procedure defined in the Certification Practice Statement of Certifying Authority. Explanation: Digital Signature Certificate shall,- (a) be deemed to be compromised where the integrity of- (i) the private key associated with the Digital Signature Certificate is in doubt; (ii) the Digital Signature Certificate owner is in doubt, as to the use, or attempted use of his key pairs, or otherwise, for malicious or unlawful purposes; (b) remain in the compromised state for only such time as it takes to arrange for revocation. Rule 29: Revocation of Digital Signature Certificate :- (1) Digital Signature Certif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nwards, which is not only in violation of principles of natural justice but it is also against the Companies Act, 1956/2013 and the provisions of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of R1 Company (AGA Publications Limited). Therefore, all the subsequent meetings held from 19.03.2007 onwards and decisions taken during those meetings are declared to be illegal and no rights would accrue to the Respondents by virtue of those allotments. 21. The contention of second Respondent that the Petitioners do not hold any shares at all in the Respondent No. 1 Company is not all tenable, and it is hereby rejected. Since, it is already held in this judgment that the allotments made on 01.03.98 and 01.04.2006 are declared to be legal and they are made in accordance with law, the Company petition is maintainable. Further, as per list of list of shareholders as on 15.02.2007 signed by the second Respondent also recognize that Petitioner Nos. 2 7 are holding 9 shares each of original 63 shares. 22. As extracted supra, the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Rules made there-under have provided enough safeguards and security in order to prevent misuse, tamper/fraudulently use etc o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 to 11 deserves to be allowed and thus their names are arrayed as such. 25. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit to exercise powers conferred on this Tribunal under sections 397 and 398, 402,and 406 and read with Schedule 11 of Companies Act, 1956 R/w Sections 241/242 of Companies Act, 2013. 26. For the aforesaid reasons, the Company Petition bearing CP No.71 of 2008 (TP No.29/HDB/2016) deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the Company Petition is allowed with the following directions. (1) The resolutions alleged to have been passed at the EGMs held on 19.03.2007 for non-recognizing the allotment of 20,00,000 shares that were allotted by the first Respondent Company on 01.03.1998 is hereby set aside with a consequential direction to the Registrar of Companies, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Hyderabad,Telangana not to take on record the Form No.23 filed by the 2nd Respondent in this regard. (2) The resolutions alleged to have been passed at the EGM, alleged to have been held on 19/03/2007 for non-recognizing the allotment of 84,99,937 shares that were allotted by the first Respondent Company on 01/04/2006 is hereby set aside with a consequential dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
