TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in favour of R3. It is only in the year 2018, this company petition was filed for nullification of Power of Attorney executed in favour of R3 basing on the resolution passed on 04.09.2014. The Honourable High Court held that the sale deeds executed through Power of Attorney in force cannot be declared nullified through filing Writ Petition - It appears till date neither the Petitioner nor R2 contested the order of Madurai Bench of High Court of Madras in respect to the observations made saying that execution of Power of Attorney is not in dispute. This Petitioner has not even asked any relief for nullification of the Resolution dated 4.9.2014 in this company petition, then the question of conducting trial would not arise, moreover this petitioner has not placed any prima facie material to believe that R2 fabricated the Resolution dated 04.09.2014. Therefore, it is hereby held that the petitioner counsel has tried to argue the case beyond the pleadings and the relief sought bv the petitioner. Courts are not expected to stretch case beyond the pleadings and reliefs sought in a case. When a point is not legally tenable and when relief is not sought, Court is not obliged to get ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . R3 again on 27.07.2015 executed another illegal sale deed bearing document No.2674/2015 in favour of P.G. Thomas in respect to part of the property. R5, on 06008.2015 executed an illegal sale deed bearing document Nos.2787/2015 and 2788/2015 dated 06.082015 in favour of one K. Sivakumar in respect to part of the property. Further, admittedly the land in question was originally classified as agricultural land, later it was converted into mixed residential zone and even after re-classification, it continued as an agricultural land in the revenue records. 3. The Petitioner has further stated that on 12.03.2018 she had sent a legal notice to the present Respondents for cancellation of sale deeds executed in favour of various persons by R3 and the Purchasers thereon. Now, the grievance of this Petitioner is that R2 has been managing the affairs of the company all alone, therefore the Power of Attorney dated 30.102014 executed in favour of R3 without any Board Resolution has to be declared as null and void considering such action as prejudicial to the interest of the Petitioner herein. 4. As against this Company Petition, the R3 filed reply stating that this Petitioner and R2 are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd parties . 6. As R2 through and through failed to get any relief by filing a Writ Petition in the year 2017, R2 has again approached District Judge, Tiruchirapalli by filing OS No.258/2018 against R3 and his company and other purchasers assailing this Power of Attorney as well as sale deeds executed by R3 to various persons stating that R3 along with others fabricated cancellation of Power of Attorney dated 07.12.2011 granted in favour of R3 and one T. Ramesh and thereafter fabricated another document dated 30.10.2014 i.e. Power of Attorney executed in favour of R3 by RI company. This suit has been filed before 'the District Judge, Tiruchirapalli by citing Para No.14 of the writ petition order, for having the Madurai Bench Hon'ble Madras High Court stated if Petitioner has any grievance in respect of the sale consideration, his remedy is to approach competent civil court and since the documents are set aside by the competent civil Court, the Petitioner cannot claim right over the properties already sold When R2 failed on all fronts in getting any relief, it has now become the turn of the wife to invoke this proceeding u/s 241 of Companies Act 2()13 giving an impr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... til before initiating this proceeding in the year 2018, no proceeding was initiated by this petitioner against her husband for nullification of the Resolution both of them passed and the power of attorney executed by her husband in favour of R3. It is only in the year 2018, this company petition was filed for nullification of Power of Attorney executed in favour of R3 basing on the resolution passed on 04.09.2014. 10. This wife and husband hell bent upon this R3 to get back this property from R3 by initiating proceedings before various fora. Even in the Writ proceedings initiated by R2 against R3, Madurai Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has categorically mentioned that execution of Power of Attorney in favour of R3 in respect of the land in the year 2014 is not in dispute. Therefore, the Honourable High Court held that the sale deeds executed through Power of Attorney in force cannot be declared nullified through filing Writ Petition. 11. It appears till date neither the Petitioner nor R2 contested the order of Madurai Bench of High Court of Madras in respect to the observations made saying that execution of Power of Attorney is not in dispute. Even in the relie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a collusive Petition filed against R3 to invalidate the registered Power of Attorney, R2 executed on behalf of RI company in favour of R3, therefore this Company Petition shall be dismissed, whereby this company petition is hereby dismissed by imposing costs of 51akhs payable to R3 within 30 days hereof. 14. Soon after completion of dictation of this order, the counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has further argued stating that this Bench shall examine the veracity of the resolution dated 04.09.2014 by stating that unless the documents are tested by taking evidence, no order should be passed. When the order has been passed by this, the only recourse to the counsel appearing on behalf of the parties is to file appeal but not to make further arguments. It is against the decorum of the Court. 15. For the sake of clarity, I must mention that this Petitioner has not even asked any relief for nullification of the Resolution dated 4.9.2014 in this company petition, then the question of conducting trial would not arise, moreover this petitioner has not placed any prima facie material to believe that R2 fabricated the Resolution dated 04.09.2014. Therefore, it is hereby hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
