https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366600 The NCLT dismissed the petition as the Appellant failed to prove his shareholding in the Respondent No.1 Company, essential for maintaining the petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Appellant's reliance on Form No.2 and alleged EOGM was deemed insufficient without supporting evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal with costs of Rs. 2 lakhs to be paid to the Respondent No.1 Company. The delay in challenging the allotment further weakened the Appellant's case, with the NCLT emphasizing the lack of prima facie evidence to support the Appellant's claims. en-us Thu, 12 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Sep 2018 08:36:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366600 The NCLT dismissed the petition as the Appellant failed to prove his shareholding in the Respondent No.1 Company, essential for maintaining the petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Appellant's reliance on Form No.2 and alleged EOGM was deemed insufficient without supporting evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal with costs of Rs. 2 lakhs to be paid to the Respondent No.1 Company. The delay in challenging the allotment further weakened the Appellant's case, with the NCLT emphasizing the lack of prima facie evidence to support the Appellant's claims. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 12 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366600