Company petition under Companies Act found maintainable. Ownership dispute of 1,310 shares to be examined. Delay condoned, case proceeds.

The Board found the company petition maintainable under sections 111 and 111A of the Companies Act, 1956. The dispute over the ownership of 1,310 shares and the validity of documents claimed by the petitioner were to be examined during the final disposal. Despite challenges on maintainability and delay in filing, the Board decided to condone the delay and proceed with the case. The High Court's dismissal of a related civil suit highlighted the lack of jurisdiction of civil courts in such matters. The case was scheduled for further hearing.

---

---

Issues:
- Maintainability of the company petition under sections 111 and 111A of the Companies Act, 1956.
- Dispute regarding the ownership of 1,310 shares in the first respondent-company.
- Estoppel on the part of the respondents regarding the jurisdiction of the civil court.
- Validity of documents and authority claimed by the petitioner in the company petition.
- Delay in filing the company petition and reasons for condonation.

Analysis:

1. The company petition was filed under sections 111 and 111A of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking the return of 1,310 shares claimed to be purchased by the petitioner from the thirteenth respondent. The bone of contention was whether the thirteenth respondent had transferred all his shares to other respondents, as claimed by the first respondent-company. The High Court's judgment dismissing a related civil suit emphasized the lack of jurisdiction of the civil court in such disputes.

2. The respondents contended that the company petition was not maintainable under section 111(4) of the Act, as the dispute fell under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the Companies Act. The petitioner, claiming through the thirteenth respondent, argued that the High Court's decision allowed him to approach the Company Law Board. The Board held that the petitioner's right to claim through the thirteenth respondent would be examined during the final disposal of the petition.

3. The issue of maintainability was challenged by the respondents, citing estoppel due to their earlier contention regarding jurisdiction. The Board emphasized that the detailed enquiry into the genuineness of the documents and the legality of the petitioner's claim would be conducted during the final disposal of the company petition. The High Court's grant of liberty to the thirteenth respondent to approach the Board further supported the maintainability of the petition.

4. The Board considered the delay in filing the company petition after the dismissal of the second appeal, noting the reasons provided by the petitioner for the delay. Convinced by the explanations, the Board decided to condone the delay and dismissed the application challenging the maintainability of the company petition.

5. In conclusion, the Board found the company petition to be maintainable, emphasizing that the issues raised would be examined during the final disposal of the petition, rather than in the preliminary application challenging its maintainability. The case was scheduled for further hearing on a specified date.

---