9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Companies Act, 1956, read with sections 402 and 406 of the Companies Act, 1956 against M/s. All Square Realtors India P. Ltd. (the respondents) by, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs : (a) To declare that the respondents have conducted the affairs of the first respondent-company in a manner oppressive to the petitioner and prejudicial to the interest of the company. (b) To direct that all the business that has been brought in as a result of the first respondent-company's association with L. J. Hooker be routed only through the first respondent-company. (c) To restrain the respondents (except the first respondent-company) from holding themselves out in any manner as being associated with the L. J. Hooker name and brand, e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mental in the exponential growth of the company. (2) The petitioner is the holder of 10,000 equity shares of Rs. 100 each out of the paid-up and subscribed capital of the first respondent-company. This position is reflected in the annual return filed on behalf of the first respondent-company and referred to hereinabove. The petitioner consequently holds 20 per cent. of the paid-up capital of the company, and is entitled to maintain the present petition. The petitioner is also one out of six members of the first respondent-company, and therefore also fulfils the criterion of being not less than one-tenth of the total number of members of a company having a share capital, and is entitled to maintain the present petition on this ground as we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the investment made by the petitioner and the extra shares issued to the second respondent as consideration for his bringing about the synergy between L. J. Hooker and the first respondent-company, the shareholding pattern of the company stand as follows : * Petitioner 20% * Second respondent 50.50% * Third respondent 8% * Fourth respondent 9.50% * Sixth respondent 10% * Seventh and eighth respondent 2% 3. The case is transferred from the Company Law Board, Chennai to this Tribunal, which is taken up on record of this Tribunal and it was listed before the Bench on several occasions, viz., August 28, 2017, September 19, 2017, October 11, 2017, November 3, 2017, December 18, 2017, February 15, 2018, March 12, 2018, April 6, 2018, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k off the Register of Companies and the said companies are dissolved." Respondent No. 1-company is figured in the annexure at Sl. No. 1648. Therefore, learned counsel urged the Tribunal that the main company petition itself is not maintainable to consider any relief as sought by the petitioner. 6. Shri Naman Jhabakh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand, submits that the petition is still maintainable, as striking off the name of respondent No. 1-company, during the pendency of the company petition, is illegal and thus the strike off can be set aside/ignored. 7. The company petition is filed under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with sections 402 and 406 of the Companies Act, 1956 by making various a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
