9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1757X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CP No.34 (ND)/2012 moved by the appellant for amendment of his Company Petition has been dismissed. (2). The facts may be noticed briefly. The appellant has filed CP No.34 (ND)/2012 under Sections 397, 398, 402 & 403 read with Sections 111-A of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short, 'the Act') before the Company Law Board (in short, 'the Board'). The Company Petition is founded upon several instances of alleged oppression and mismanagement including (i) illegal and mala fide transfer of 2500 shares held by the appellant to respondent No.3; (ii) attempt to illegally acquire 20% out of 40% shares held by the appellant in the Company through undue threat and coercion; (iii) mis-management in the affairs of the respondent-company; (iv) resignatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before this Court in CAPP No.26 of 2012. While the respondents have been anxious for an earlier disposal of the company petition, as according to them, the factum of its pendency was being misused by the appellant in the proceedings pending in the foreign court in USA, the appellants in that appeal did not object to the expeditious disposal of the company petition if they were not denied access to the company's record which purportedly had material bearing on the issues raised in the main petition. (5). Keeping in mind the concern shown by both the parties, CAPP No.26 of 2012 was disposed of by a consent order dated 20th December, 2012 directing that CA No.420/2012 shall be decided along with the main petition and mindful of the urgency in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d hostile environment created by the contesting respondents. The appellant also sought amendment in the prayer clause to incorporate additional prayers with reference and as a consequence to the averments proposed to be incorporated in the main petition. (7). The Board has dismissed the amendment application, inter alia, observing that - (i) the appellant was not re-appointed as Director of the company in the AGM held on 29th December, 2012 and stood retired by rotation; (ii) he has been admittedly injuncted by the High Court of Delhi from exercising the voting rights on their 20% shares, in a suit filed by one of the contesting respondents; (iii) the appellant earlier moved CA No.427/2012 seeking directions for setting aside the ill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cause of justice; the Board, even after noticing a 'plethora of case law', has not cared to follow the recent decision of the High Court of Delhi in Gurpartap Singh & Ors. vs. M/s Vista Private Hospitality P. Ltd. decided on 09.09.2013 which held that the strict provisions of CPC are not applicable to the proceedings before a Tribunal like the Board; no provision similar to the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been incorporated in Regulation 44 or 46 of the 1991 Regulations which is suggestive of a liberal approach by the Board to secure the ends of justice; the impugned order is perverse as it encourages profusion of litigation by permitting the appellant to institute a fresh petition instead of amending the one which is yet to be de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seek that very relief by amending the original petition and that too when he had already committed before this Court to commence arguments in the main petition on 11.01.2013. (13). The event of his non-appointment as a Director of the company or consequential removal by rotation also took place in December, 2012 to the full knowledge of the appellant. As regard to the third amendment on the resignation of the appellant's co-petitioner due to alleged hostile environment, the very locus of the appellant to rake up this issue is questionable. (14). The expeditious disposal of the main petition is the core issue and every action or omission of the parties in deference thereto has to be adjudged by the Board keeping in view the observations co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... power on the CLB to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of its process. Regulation 46 also enables the Board to amend any defect or error in any proceedings before it for the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on such proceedings. These powers appear to be akin to the inherent powers conferred on a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure or on the superior or the High Courts under different provisions of the procedural laws. The solitary object of these powers is to arm the courts to act according to their judicial consciousness and dismantle the barricade of injustice, if any, created by procedural niceties. Conversely, the cause of justice is also equ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
