Petition dismissed for non-compliance with Companies Act; liberty granted for fresh filing.

The court dismissed the petition as the petitioner failed to meet the requirements of Section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner's shares were under litigation in a Partition Suit and attached by the Income Tax Department, preventing compliance with Section 399. The court granted liberty to file a fresh petition after obtaining necessary approvals or directions from the Central Government, Supreme Court, or Income Tax Department. The court disposed of the cases and vacated any stay orders, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement.
2. Maintainability of the petition under Section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956.
3. Suppression of material facts by the petitioner.
4. Attachment of shares by the Income Tax Department.
5. Appointment of a Receiver by the Supreme Court for certain shares.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Acts of Oppression and Mismanagement:
The petitioner alleged serious acts of oppression and mismanagement by the respondent company, including the dilution of the petitioner's shareholding and siphoning of company funds. The petitioner claimed to hold 6260 equity shares, representing approximately 19% of the total issued shares, and argued that this entitled him to file the petition.

2. Maintainability of the Petition under Section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956:
The respondents challenged the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the petitioner did not fulfill the mandatory provisions of Section 399. They contended that the petitioner held less than 10% of the total paid-up shares, and the shares were either attached by the Income Tax Department or held as Karta of an HUF, which were under litigation.

3. Suppression of Material Facts by the Petitioner:
The respondents alleged that the petitioner suppressed material facts, including:
- The appointment of a Receiver by the Supreme Court for 3000 shares held as Karta of HUF.
- The attachment of 3260 shares by the Income Tax Department due to tax arrears.

4. Attachment of Shares by the Income Tax Department:
The respondents argued that 3260 shares held by the petitioner in his personal capacity were attached by the Income Tax Department under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act. This attachment meant that all dividends from these shares were to be remitted to the Income Tax Department, and the shares could not be transferred without the department's permission.

5. Appointment of a Receiver by the Supreme Court for Certain Shares:
The respondents highlighted that 3000 shares held by the petitioner as Karta of HUF were under the custody of a Receiver appointed by the Supreme Court. This meant the petitioner could not initiate any action based on these shares without appropriate directions from the Supreme Court.

Judgment:

Analysis of Shareholding:
The petitioner held 6260 shares under two different folios: 3260 shares in his personal capacity and 3000 shares as Karta of HUF. The court observed that the 3000 shares were under litigation in a Partition Suit, and a Receiver was appointed by the Supreme Court. The 3260 shares were attached by the Income Tax Department, which meant the petitioner could not transfer these shares or use them to fulfill the requirements of Section 399.

Legal Position:
The court emphasized that while deciding the maintainability of the petition, only the averments made in the petition and the documents filed by the petitioner are to be considered. However, the court also acknowledged that the respondents could challenge the maintainability based on suppression of facts and non-fulfillment of Section 399 provisions.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner did not fulfill the requirements of Section 399 due to:
- The pending Partition Suit and the appointment of a Receiver for the 3000 shares held as Karta of HUF.
- The attachment of 3260 shares by the Income Tax Department.

As a result, the court dismissed the petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh petition either after obtaining necessary approval from the Central Government under Section 399(4) of the Companies Act, 1956, or after getting suitable directions from the Supreme Court regarding the 3000 shares or from the Income Tax Department regarding the 3260 shares.

Orders:
- The CA No. 49/2009 and CP No. 60(ND)2008 were disposed of accordingly.
- Stay orders, if any, were vacated.
- No orders as to cost.

---