2010 (7) TMI 823 - Board - Companies Law

Bench Orders Inspection of Specific Documents, Denies Salary Disbursement Claim

Smt. Soma Dutta Versus KC. Daw & Bros. (P.) Ltd.

The petition for disclosure of official documents, salary disbursement, board resolutions, committee of management appointment, accounts enquiry, and ... Registers and returns - Place of keeping and inspection of Issues:Petition for disclosure of official documents, salary disbursement, board resolutions, committee of management appointment, accounts enquiry, and management control injunction.Disclosure of Official Documents:The petitioner, a shareholder and director, sought disclosure of official documents, including the register, annual returns, and books of account for inspection. The respondents allegedly stopped issuing notices about board resolutions and annual meetings since 2008, ousting the petitioner from management. Despite several requests, the respondents refused inspection, leading to the petition under section 163 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Bench ordered inspection of specific documents under section 163, rejecting requests beyond its scope.Salary Disbursement:The petitioner claimed non-payment of salary as a director since August 2008. The petitioner's counsel argued for salary disbursement along with arrears. The respondents contended that the relief for remuneration was beyond the scope of section 163 of the Act, urging its rejection. The Bench ruled that remuneration relief fell outside section 163's scope, denying the petitioner's claim.Board Resolutions and Management Control:The petitioner also sought directions on board resolutions, annual meetings, and administrative decisions. The Bench clarified that relief sought beyond section 163's scope, including appointment of a committee of management and accounts enquiry, was rejected. The petitioner's entitlement to inspect documents beyond section 163 was acknowledged, directing the first respondent to provide specific document inspections within 15 days.Conclusion:The petition under section 163 was disposed of without costs. The Bench emphasized that while the petitioner could inspect documents covered under section 163, the order did not limit her right to inspect other documents not falling under that section. The judgment highlighted the distinction between relief permissible under section 163 and other requests, ensuring compliance with the Companies Act provisions.