TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 1110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holders, have filed the present petition with a mala fide intention for the purpose of preventing the first respondent-company from getting an FL 3 licence to entitle it to serve liquor on the premises. The petitioners falsely declared themselves to be shareholders and have sought to file the present petition. Petitioner No. 1, i.e., Shri P.S. Kurian, transferred his shares as early as May 20, 2008, in favour of Mr. Nishad Mathew, the ninth respondent herein. He also issued a letter acknowledging the transfer and receipt of consideration. The board, of directors approved the transfer of shares. In so far as the second petitioner, i.e., Shri P.K. Jose (P.C. Jose) is concerned, it is reiterated that no one by the name of P.C. Jose has ever be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he shares were already transferred is false and the burden of proof of such voluntary transfer lies on the applicants herein. It is submitted that the applicants hijacked the company from the petitioners and made use of the blank transfer deeds duly signed and kept in the company's premises by the petitioners, thereby creating a share transfer in the name of the applicants and the ninth respondent and making a claim that the petitioners have transferred their entire shares in the company to the applicants. It is submitted that during the pendency of C.P. No. 9 of 2008, the applicants invited the petitioners for settlement of talks and during the course of the settlement the petitioners executed the blank transfer forms and kept them in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the petitioners continue to be shareholders and directors of the company and the applicants through their misdeeds cannot eliminate or throw the respondents out of the company and the burden of proof is on the applicants to prove before the Bench that how they claim that the petitioners are not the shareholders of the company. In view of the reasons, the application is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 2. Respondents Nos. 6 and 7 have filed their counter and submitted that the present application is an abuse of the process of law on the ground that they have not made out any prima facie case seeking reliefs as prayed in the application. It is stated that the applicants herein invited the respondents/petitioners for sett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, perused the pleadings and documents filed in their support. The only issue that fell for consideration is whether the petitioners have transferred their shares and the petition is maintainable. The stand of the applicants that the petitioners (4 in No., i.e., S/Shri P.S. Kurian, P.K. Jose, Kurien Thomas, N.K. Mathai) have transferred their respective shares on May 20, 2008, vide share transfer forms executed on May 20, 2008. I have perused the share transfer forms and the receipts executed by the petitioners wherefrom it is evident that the petitioners have transferred their shares on May 20, 2008. Petitioner No. 1 transferred his 3,000 shares bearing distinctive numbers 5001 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shares of ₹ 500 each bearing the above distinctive numbers and stated that he has received a consideration of ₹ 5,00,000 based on the mutual agreement and towards full and final settlement. He further confirmed that respondent No. 9 does not owe any amount to petitioner No. 2 towards the purchase consideration and the said shares belong to him. Petitioner No. 3 also executed the share transfer form transferring his 1,000 equity shares of ₹ 500 each bearing distinctive numbers 1001 to 2000 to respondent No. 8 (in main company petition) on May 20, 2008. Both the transferor and the transferee have signed the share- transfer form. Petitioner No. 3 being the transferor executed receipt wherein it has been clearly stated that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the minutes of the 62nd meeting of the board of directors of respondent No. 1 company held on July 8, 2008. In the said meeting, the transfer of shares was approved. It is also seen that there are other approvals of share transfers along with that of the petitioners. In view of the transfer of shares seeking approval of the board along with that of the petitioners, it cannot be said that the board meeting was convened to approve the transfer of shares of the petitioners alone. The applicants also enclosed copy of the register of members wherein the transfers that took place were recorded. Learned senior counsel for the applicants drew my attention to some of the averments made by the petitioners in the affidavits filed before the hon'b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
