TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petition Dismissed for Lack of Shareholding Proof & Locus Standi</h1> <h3>Sameer Goe Versus Nijinoy Trading (P.) Ltd.</h3> The court dismissed the petition on the grounds of maintainability as the petitioner failed to prove his shareholding and lacked the locus standi to file ... Oppression and mismanagement Issues Involved:1. Allegations of oppression and mismanagement under sections 397, 398, and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956.2. Validity of the petitioner's shareholding and locus standi to file the petition.3. Legitimacy of the extraordinary general meetings and resolutions passed therein.4. Alleged fabrication and falsehood in company records and filings with the Registrar of Companies.5. Removal of directors and the legality of the resolutions passed for their removal.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Allegations of Oppression and Mismanagement:The petitioner invoked sections 397, 398, and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging that respondents Nos. 2 and 3, in collusion with respondents Nos. 4 to 10, sought to take over the management and control of the respondent-company. The petitioner claimed that these respondents acted oppressively towards other members by excluding respondents Nos. 11 and 12 from the board of directors and attempting to dispose of valuable company assets. The petitioner argued that the actions of respondents Nos. 2 to 10 were prejudicial to the interests of the company and its members, warranting relief under the specified sections.2. Validity of the Petitioner's Shareholding and Locus Standi:The petitioner asserted ownership of 4,40,000 equity shares, constituting 44% of the company's shareholding, thereby claiming the right to file the petition under sections 397 and 398. However, the respondents contested this, stating that the petitioner did not hold any shares and thus lacked the locus standi to file the petition. The respondents argued that the shareholding pattern showed only respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as shareholders, each holding 5,000 shares. The court found that the petitioner failed to produce any share certificates or register of members to substantiate his claim of shareholding. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition on the grounds of maintainability, as the petitioner did not meet the requirements under section 399 of the Act.3. Legitimacy of the Extraordinary General Meetings and Resolutions:The respondents challenged the legitimacy of the extraordinary general meetings and the resolutions passed therein. They argued that no such meetings were held, and no resolutions were passed as alleged by the petitioner. The respondents provided evidence, including an affidavit from a clerk at the registered office, stating that no meetings took place on the dates mentioned. The court did not delve into this issue further due to the dismissal of the petition on the grounds of maintainability.4. Alleged Fabrication and Falsehood in Company Records:The respondents alleged that the petitioner and respondents Nos. 11 and 12 fabricated documents and made false entries in the company records. They pointed out discrepancies in the notice and minutes of the alleged meetings and claimed that the filings with the Registrar of Companies were false. The respondents provided evidence, including a letter from a company secretary who admitted to certifying documents based on assurances from respondent No. 12 without verifying the facts. The court did not address this issue in detail due to the dismissal of the petition on the grounds of maintainability.5. Removal of Directors and Legality of Resolutions:The respondents argued that the removal of respondents Nos. 11 and 12 from the board of directors was legitimate, as it was done through resolutions passed at a duly convened extraordinary general meeting. They provided evidence of notices served and the resolutions passed. The court did not examine the legality of these resolutions due to the dismissal of the petition on the grounds of maintainability.Conclusion:The court dismissed the petition on the grounds of maintainability, as the petitioner failed to establish his shareholding and, consequently, his locus standi to file the petition under sections 397 and 398. The court did not address the other issues raised in the petition due to this dismissal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
