TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany Petition 71/2008. As considered the pleadings made by both the parties along with supporting material papers. It is true that the court/Tribunal should not permit to file litigation separately for the same cause of action. The suit/Company Petition is required to be filed by impleading all proper and necessary parties to the litigation instituted in a court of law. As convinced that the applicants are appropriate and necessary parties to the main CP No. 71 of 2008, and allowing this Application would not cause any prejudice to anybody. On the other hand, it would facilitate to decide the issue by associating all the proper and necessary parties. Therefore, the Company Application deserves to be allowed. - CA No. 131 of 2017 in CP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 125000 equity shares each i.e., total 500000 equity shares. c. On 1/4/2006 the respondent No.8 company made a further allotment of 84 99 937 equity shares of ₹ 10/- each among Sanghi family members out of which the Applicant No.1 to 3 were allotted each 531250 equity shares, total 2124946, and the total paid-up share capital of 8th Respondent as on that date was 1.05 crores of equity shares of ₹ 10/- each while the Applicants are holding 26 24 946 equity shares of ₹ 10/- each. Hence, all the 4 Applicants together are holding approximately 25% of equity in the 8th Respondent Company. d. The Respondent no.9 has filed form no.2 on 06/04/2007 with ROC, AP, falsely claiming that 84 99 939 equity shares were allotte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er submit that the reasons for the delay in making this impleading application are that after the above CP was filed before the erstwhile Hon ble CLB, Chennai in 2008, the case was not proceeded with over a long period for the reason that the Hon ble CLB advised the sanghi brothers to hold compromise talks and settle their disputes amicably. Further, the Hon ble CLB on several occasions made efforts to settle the matters among sanghi brothers amicably and accordingly passed some interim orders (i.e. 14.10.2008 23.10.2008 etc) with a view to protect the interests of group companies and also to prevent the alienation of the shares and properties of the said group companies into the hands of third party 3. l have heard Shri A. Chakravort ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 10.12.2014. (ii) Hon ble Supreme Court Judgement in Dale and Carrington Invt. P. Ltd vs. P.K. Prathapan Ors dated 13.09.2004 (iii) Allahabad High Court Judgement in Daljeet Puri Another Vs. Abha Puri Ors dated 02.02.2012 6 The Learned Counsel for the Respondent in the Company Application have opposed the CA and submit that the Applicants are not diligent enough to file this application at appropriate time and it is not permissible ,at this stage, to allow the Application as it would cause further delay of the issue which pending for a long time. 7. I have considered the pleadings made by both the parties along with supporting material papers. It is true that the court/Tribunal should not permit to file litigation separa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
