9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ( JUDICIAL ) This is an appeal against an impugned order dated 13.05.2024 passed by the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad in CP/07(AHM)2023 and Com.App/2(AHM)2023 whereby the company petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on grounds of maintainability and delay. 2. Vide the impugned order dated 13.05.2024 the Ld. Tribunal held the petition filed by the appellant was not maintainable per Section 244(b) of the Companies Act, 2013. As per Section 244(b) of the Companies Act, 2013, in case of a Company not having share capital, then the members not less than 1/5th of the total number of members of Company shall have the right to apply under Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Ld. Tribunal held on the date of filing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed by various judicial forums. A summary of same is captured in 18 above. III. Sufficient to say that as per orders of CLB, a meeting under the chairmanship of ROC was held in the year 2009 where at the present management was duly elected and all challenges to the same failed. IV. The new management changed the AOA of the company some time in 2012 removing the two-tier structure. Upon intervention of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the old AOA was restored, however after some time the amended AOA were again modified and the two tier structure was restored. The petitioner has not challenged the said decision of the management of the company. V. The Petitioner and Mr. Ratin Desai were removed as members way back in EGM held on 01 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as on February, 2012 wherein the name of the appellant was included at S.No.12 of the Page No.18 of additional documents handed over to us across the table. Further he has also shown us a list of eligible live members as on 30.06.2013 wherein his name is at Sl.No.10 (this list is though not filed with this appeal). It is argued if the appellant was shown to be a member of the Club on 30.06.2013 then how it could be believed he was removed as a member way back on 1.2.2012 and if he was so removed, his name ought not to have been in the list of eligible members as on June 2013. Heard. 7. At the outset this list of 30.06.2013, as alleged by the respondent, is fabricated. Nevertheless, the learned counsel for Respondent rather relies upon a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld the appellant did not meet the threshold for filing the Company Petition. . 9. Though the Ld counsel for the appellant also made a reference to an order passed on 21.07.2014 in SLP(C) No.8787 of 2013, but a bare perusal of the said order would show the reference of 36 original members was made in the context of 2009 elections and admittedly the appellant was a member during such period and hence cannot take benefit of the said order after the year 2012, when he was ultimately removed. 10.. Considering the fact the appellant was removed in the year 2012 from the list of members in EOGM dated 01.02.2012; such removal having been published in the newspaper; the appellant never took steps to challenge the decision of the EOGM dated 1.2.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
