9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate, Mr. Avishek Guha, Advocate And Mr. Hiranyak Ganguly, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Mr. Shankar Sen Sarkar, Advocate And Mr. Durgesh Kumar Jha. C.S. For MKH Realty LLP Mr. Jinesh Shah, Advocate For Respondent No. 5 ORDER Per Shri Harish Chander Suri, Member (Technical): 1. This application I.A. 1229/KB/2019 in C.P. No. 119/KB/2017 has been filed by the applicants who are the Respondents in the main C.P. No. 119/KB/2017. The main C.P. was filed under Sections 241 & 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, hereinafter referred to as the "Act", against the Respondents M/s. LGW Limited, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Mr. Anurag Gupta, Ms. Lucia Gupta & Mr. Jinesh Shah. 2. It is submitted that the present I.A. was filed on behalf of LGW Limi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all the records, books of accounts of the Company and to operate the Bank Account. In the application filed in the main C.P. on 14th March, 2017, the convening of the EOGM scheduled to be held on 16th March, 2017 was not stayed by this Tribunal but the Respondents were restrained from giving any effect to any Resolution passed in the said Extra Ordinary General Meeting. In the said meeting however, the Resolution was passed with 82.42% majority shareholders, thereby removing the Petitioner from the post of Directorship but in view of the said order dated 14th March, 2017, the Resolution was not uploaded with the Registrar of Companies and no effect thereto was given. The aforesaid interim order has been extended from time to time. 6. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is also a shareholder of the Family Company. It is submitted that the applicant is trying to take inconsistent and self explanatory stand. 10. During the arguments the Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Applicant Mr. Shah submitted that admittedly the Applicant is the Owner of 82.42% shareholding (Respondent Nos. 1 to 4). Both the Petitioners and the Respondents/Directors of the Company submitted that at the point of time the C.P. was filed, the main ground was that the Applicants are trying to oust the Petitioner from the Board of Directors. 11. It is submitted by the Respondents that the Petitioner has been causing a lot of inconvenience and hindrance in the day to day administration of the Company. It is further submitted that 82% of the shareh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ument is that neither of the parties has any objection if an EOGM is allowed to be held by the Board of Directors under the Chairmanship of Special Officer to be appointed by this Tribunal. What is challenged on the side of the respondent/ petitioner in the CP is that no resolution is to be passed removing the director/petitioner. That objection is devoid of any merit in view of the power of the Company u/s.169 of the Act. 15. Without going into the merits and demerits of the case on both the sides, we are of the considered view that there is no harm if the holding up of EOGM is allowed to be held as prayed in the present application. It is the right of the shareholders to convene EOGM and pass any resolution inclusive of removal of a dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
