TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aced on record to show existence of a fraud. The evidence is sketchy. There is nothing to show what was the fraud played on the appellant. Company Law Board has already recorded a finding of fact that the petition is barred by limitation. The petition was barred by limitation as it pertains to the year 1996 and the petitioner/appellant has been enjoying all the benefits as a shareholder. No reason to disturb the findings of fact recorded by the Company Law Board. That apart, it is difficult to believe the version of the appellant. The public issue came in January 1996. The appellant has enjoyed the fruits of the shares allotted to it for more than 8 years and suddenly wakes up in 2004 to claim a fraud based on some hearsay evidence ga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount with 24% compound interest. Other connected reliefs are also sought. 2. The case of the appellant is that respondent No. 1 Company came up with a public issue and issued the prospectus on 11.03.1996 in which respondents No. 2 to 9 who were the directors were the signatories to the prospectus. Respondent No. 10 was the lead manager and respondent No. 11 was the Registrar to the public issue. The prospectus clearly stated that the entire public issue offered for subscription has been fully underwritten. The public issue was opened on 06.06.1996 and closed on 15.06.1996. The respondent Company issued notice to the appellant to subscribe to the prospectus and to pay allotment amount for 1,49,300 shares @ ₹ 10 each. As the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing its underwriting obligation fully satisfied itself and its liability to underwrite the shares. Prior to opening of the issue requisite stationery in the form of application form and prospectus were issued to the appellant who duly accepted the same. It is reiterated that the issue was 100% underwritten by the underwriters. The underwriting agreement was entered into between the appellant and respondent No. 1 on 11.03.1996. It is also stated that the appellant sent a bill for underwriting commission of ₹ 37,500/- which was paid by respondent No. 1. The appellant also claimed brokerage which was duly paid on 28.10.1996. It is reiterated that CIFFCO Ltd. and Bharat Bhushan Shares and Stock Brokers Ltd. were the co-managers to the iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... propriate application to lead evidence in the present appeal vis-a.-vis the question of limitation as well as the assertion that the public issue for equity shares underwritten, had not been underwritten by their represented underwriter. Leave granted. Re-notify on 10th January, 2017. 10. Pursuant thereto, evidence has been filed by way of affidavit of Mr. Vinay Ramakant Kulkarni. All that he states is that on 06.02.2004 Mr.Rama Krishna, the authorised signatory of the appellant company visited the Supreme Court for some legal work and found listing of the SLP of the parties of the parties, namely, Mr. Pukhraj Lunkar and Mr. Kamal Sethia Ors. On enquires, he learnt about the respondent s misrepresentation and fraud played b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
