9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 11 in CP No.71/2008 in the interest of justice. (b) To restore the allotments of 20,00,000 shares and 84,99,937 shares that were originally allotted by the 1st Respondent Company on 01.03.1998 and 01.04.2006 respectively. (c) To set aside the illegal allotment of 45,00,000 shares alleged to have been allotted to the 9th Respondent and his family on 19.03.2007. 2. Brief facts, leading to filing of present Company Application are as follows:- a. The Applicants are the shareholders of the 8th Respondent Company, which was promoted by Sanghi Family in the year 1994 with 63 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each and these shares were equally divided among Sanghi family members including the first applicant herein who acquired nine equity shares ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01.03.1998 and secondly 84,99,937 equity shares on 01.04.2006. The Respondent No.9 himself has signed and filed both the Forms No.2 with RoC, AP. g. It is further stated that all the Applicants herein are holding 26,24,946 equity shares in addition with Petitioners group have a very strong doubt and suspicion on the part of the management of the 8th Respondent Company led by the Respondent No.9 as CMD of the 8th Respondent Company in the matters of compliance of various legal provisions of company law as well as the maintenance and updating of secretarial records and documents of the 8th Respondent Company as required to be maintained under the Company Law. h. Therefore, they claim that they applicants are entitled to implead to them b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntly cancelled. On cancellation of the shares, CP No. 71 of 2008 is filed by Anand Sanghi, which is still pending on the file of this Tribunal and the same is disposed of today by separate order. 5 It is the settled position of law that the proper and necessary parties should be impleaded to a litigation, in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation later on with a similar prayer. Moreover, the main issue is pending from the year 2008, and if the Applicants are not permitted to add as petitioners as prayed for in the' present application, it will lead to file a separate Company Petition, which is not at all warranted, since the prayer of the Applicants in the present Company Application is already covered by the prayer in the main Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
