9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion No.G.S.R.1119 (E) dated 7.12.2016 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, promulgating the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016, as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 3.2.2017 in R.P.No.116 of 2017 in W.P(C) No.39898 of 2016 and judgment dated 3.2.2017 in W.P(C) No.39551 of 2016, it is ordered that the Registry will take steps to transfer these matters to the National Company Law Tribunal, (NCLT) Chennai, with all the case records. The National Company. Law Tribunal, Chennai, may be requested to issue necessary notices to all the Advocates concerned as well as the parties concerned in these cases well in advance before the next posting date, so as to enable them to appear either through the present Advocates concerned or by making necessary alternate arrangements in that regard. Upon the aforesaid order this Company Petition was transferred to NCLT, Chennai Bench and on constitution of Kochi Bench this was again transferred to this Bench and renumbered as TCP No. 89/KOB/2019. 2. The Petition was filed under Section 237 read with 247 of the Companies Act,1956. The first Petitioner is a Registered Association (Society) of various dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the 6th Respondent. 6. It is also stated that the 2nd petitioner herein, in his capacity as the convener of the 1st petitioner, sent a registered notice on behalf of all the members, claiming their deposits back on 25.7.2008. This was returned stating various reasons such as door locked, absent etc. 7. The Petitioners are ready to produce the pass book and all documents before this Tribunal. Petitioners learnt that in a similar issue this Tribunal appointed a Receiver, who was the representative of the Federal Bank. 8. It is also stated that this is not a misdeed or mismanagement of any single unit of the Yogam, but it is a planned operation throughout the State, protected and shielded by the 5th Respondent. Therefore, the Petitioners sought the following relief: - To declare that the affairs of the Company (S.N.D.P Yogam) ought to be investigated by an Inspector appointed by the Central Government in the facts and circumstances appearing on the face of Annexure I to IV. 9. Respondent No.4 filed a counter stating that the Company Petition was filed in the year 2007-2008, hence all the details in connection with this petition are not available in the Police Station. On enqui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nies Regulation 1 of 1063 (Malayalam Era) with the Registrar of joint Stock Companies, Travancore as Company No.2 of 1078 (Malayalam Era). Upon the enactment of the Companies Act, 1956, the said company was functioning as a company under the jurisdiction of Registrar of Companies, Kerala as Company No. 995 in the Register of Companies maintained by Registrar of Companies, Kerala. Since then the 6th Respondent Company was filing documents under Section 235 companies Act with the Registrar of Companies Kerala up to 2001. 13. It is further stated that 3 persons who are the members of the Company had moved a petition under Section 399(4) of the Companies Act before the Central Government requesting for authorization to file an application before the Company Law Board for relief under Section 397/398 of the Companies Act as against the Respondent No.6 Company. On consideration of the application the Central Government by its order dated 23.08.2005 held that the SNDP Yogam was deemed to be incorporated under the provisions of Section 3 of the Kerala Non Trading Companies Act, 1961 (Act 42 of 61) from 01.03.1962. Under the said Act, the Registrar means the Inspector General of Registrati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.363 accepting deposits from depositors and pass book were issued to the depositors. There is no allegation against the functioning of the 6th Respondent through its General secretary, Board of Directors, Yogam Council. Hence there is no complaint against the functioning business or affairs of the 6th Respondent. 17. The 6th Respondent is a Non Trading Company as mentioned above with limited liability as an association without the addition of word "Limited". The SNDP Branch No.363 is not having a status of a branch of company in the eye of Company Law. The assets of the shaka are not the assets of the 6th Respondent. The assets and liability of the shaka is the assets and liability of shaka alone and that the internal management of affairs of a shaka absolutely belong to shaka alone. 18. For the purpose of promoting the objects of the SNDP Yogam enumerated in the Memorandum of Association the members of the SNDP Yogam residing within the village limit or local limits formed their association as "shaka yogam". Those shakas can function as per the Rules of SNDP Yogam and under the Shaka Byelaws accepted by the respective shakas which is produced along with their application for af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Branch No.363 and K. Bhaskaran Secretary of Branch No.363 had filed WPC 1126/07 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. In Para 2 of the Writ Petition the President and Secretary of the Branch stated as follows: - "with the sole and solemn objective to enable the helpless a trust was constituted and got is duly registered on 25/11/98. A true copy of registration certificate of the trustees is produced herewith and marked as exhibit P4 as part of various legitimate program and schemes and look into the possibility of providing better housing facility sanitation and the employment. The trust accepted deposits from well middle class people and disburse meaningful loans to the deserving to pool sufficient resources in order to offer financial assistances to the depressed and destitute" 25. In WPC 18767/07 filed by some of the members of the petitioner association seeking relief against the President and Secretary of shaka 363 also, there was no implication against the 6th Respondent. In the said writ petition the Secretary and the President or Branch No.363 filed a counter affidavit which reads as follows: "the allegations in para 1 and 2 is partly correct. It is true that presid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land of 66.25 cent in survey No. 39/2 (Resurvey No. 162/8 and 162/16) including the Auditorium and 22.60 cents of land in Survey No. 39/3, 39/4B, 39/4B1, 39/4B2(Resurvey No. 162/13, 162/6, 162/5) of the above S.N.D.P branch situated in Ambalapuzha North Village, Ambalapuzha Taluk. 29. While considering another Petition C.P. No.33 of 2007 by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala filed by the S.N.D.P Branch No.363 and another, the Hon'ble High Court permitted Sri. Unnikrishnan Nair to implead as the Respondent No.11 as per the direction in CA/403/2010 dated 06.07.2010, by passing the following order: - "We are passing this order today only to put on record the change of circumstances as we found today, especially in view of the affidavit filed by the additional eleventh respondent dated 3 of October, 2017, thus empowering and enjoining us to move forward for the purpose of settlement of the various disputes and controversy now presenting itself in this case. We are of the view, therefore that as a first step, a committee will have to be constituted under the leadership of the Advocate Receiver, Sri. A.S.P. Kurup, who can make a list of all the assets available with the Kakkazham Neeruk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
