TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns 397 and 398 of the Companies Act. 1956. because no relief is claimed against the applicant, nor any transfer of shares pertaining to NSS Karayogam is under challenge. There is no concern whatsoever of NSS Karayogam with the Company petition. Petition dismissed. - C.A.No. 1/2013 in C.P. No.75/2010 - - - Dated:- 21-11-2016 - ANANTHA PADMANABHA SWAMY CFI MOHD SFIARIEF TARIQ, MEMBERS, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri B.Dhanaraj Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Preeti Mohan, Advocate ORDER CH MOHD SHARIEF TARIQ, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) :- (ORAL) 1. Under adjudication is C.A.No.1 of 2013 that carne to be filed in C.P.No.75 of 2010 before the Company Law Board, now transferred to NCLT and renumbered as T.C.P.No.55 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cuments filed before it hut it is deciding the question as to whether the R1/petitioner is entitled to maintain the C.P. under Section 397 and 398 alleging oppression and mismanagement. It has also been stated that the issue of share transfer is not involved in the C.P. and therefore the applicant cannot be said to be necessary or proper party because no relief is claimed in any manner against the applicant. A query has been raised to the counsel for RI/petitioner during the course of hearing in relation to the present status of shares with regard to which the applicant stated that the same has not been transferred. The counsel for respondent/applicant has drawn our attention to the share certificates [at Page 6 7 of typed set of the C.P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ROC on 7.2.2010. 5. Thus, it is clear that the company petition did not contain the issue of transfer of shares of the applicant in favour of the persons mentioned above. Now. it is also necessary to see the reliefs claimed in the company petition. The reliefs that have been claimed under para 8 at Page 7 of the main C.P. are reproduced as follows :- (a) to declare that the acts of the respondent No.2 to 5 are oppressive and prejudicial to the interest of the company and members (b) to declare that the EGM held on 06.02.20 10 is illegal and void ab initio. (c) To declare that the removal of the petitioner from the directorship of the company is illegal and void ab initio. (d) To declare that the appointment of Shri Madhava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresenting NSS Karayogam. The judgment dated 28.6.2012 makes it clear that the applicant has never been appointed as Secretary in NSS Karayogam. The issue of being representing NSS Karayogam has been decided against him. This is also supported by the reply which has been filed by Respondentl/Petitioner. It may not be out of place to mention that the petitioner who claims to the representative of NSS Karayogam is also arrayed as R5 in the main C.P. in the capacity of director of the company i.e. R2 in the application. 7. The General Rule with regard to impleading of the parties is that the petitioner in a petition being dorninus litEs may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
