TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (11) TMI 395
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....299, 6394, 2658, 6070, 2714, 7477, 7478, 7512, 10249, 10250, 10251." By a registered letter dated 5-12-1994, the respondent informed the appellant that these share certificates were either lost/mislodged and therefore the respondent was initiating Court proceedings for stay. A request was made to the appellant not to transfer the share certificates. 3. Shortly thereafter, the respondent filed a suit bearing Suit No. 3540/1995 in the Ahmedabad City Civil Court praying for a prohibitory injunction against the appellant not to transfer 7500 equity shares in the name of any third person. It appears that by an ex parte order made on 30-6-1995. the Ahmedabad City Civil Court prohibited the appellant company from transferring the aforenoticed 7500 equity shares to any third party. It is the appellant's contention that it has strictly abided by the order which was passed. 4. The respondent is stated to have thereafter initiated proceedings under section 111 A of the Companies Act, 1956 against the respondent sometime in July, 2005 which were registered before the Company Law Board as Company Petition No. 7/111/05-CLB seeking the following reliefs :- "(a)That a decree for the declarati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant/RTA had not furnished to the petitioner till date. The respondent had also taken a stand that it was the responsibility and duty of the appellant to verify and check the beneficial interest/ownership of the impugned shares and to intimate the petitioner in case of any personal request by the company in respect of those shares which they failed to do. On these averments, the respondent denied that its petition suffered from legal infirmities. 7. The appellant has made a vehement grievance that the petitioner is still maintaining the suit filed by it before the Ahmedabad City Court. It has further been urged that after completion of pleadings, by an order passed on 12-5-2006, the Company Law Board reserved final order on the petition after hearing arguments. The appellant is stated to have thereafter received a notice dated 2-2-2007 informing the appellant that the petition was fixed for hearing on 21-2-2007. On this date, the appellant learnt that the matter had been directed to be fixed for hearing suo moto by the Board for the reason that some clarification in dates was necessary. There is no dispute that on 21-2-2007, the matter was adjourned on the respondent's request to 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant. The order does not set out what would constitute 'requisite details' which the appellant herein is required to furnish to the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that this order was made known to the respondent only after it had been recorded and consequently he was able to object to the order for the first time after a direction had been recorded without hearing the appellant. He has submitted that there was no hearing on any such issue. 15. There can be no dispute that the respondent had specifically taken an objection that parties in whose favour the shares in question stood transferred had not been impleaded as a party. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to certain communications addressed by his client and by the Register and Transfer Agent ('RTA') to the proposed transferees, copies whereof were purportedly also sent to the respondent. The submission is that the respondent opted not to implead these persons despite full knowledge of their particulars. The respondent has however disputed receipt of any such communication. 16. In the above background, especially having regard to the nature of disputes, there can be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owers and discharge of its functions in the said Act or any other law, the Company Law Board would be guided by the principles of natural justice and shall act in its discretion. 22. In the event that the Company Law Board was to arrive at a finding that the respondent herein was entitled to relief in the petition, certainly the rights of third parties would be impacted without their having been made a party or having been given an opportunity of contesting the respondent's claim. 23. It is well-settled that an order with regard to impleading or deletion of parties deserves to be made at the earliest stage in the proceedings. In the instant case, the matter was heard at length and reserved for hearing also. It is an admitted position that the appellant made no request for any details. Yet the Board has directed that certain details are required to be furnished by the appellant herein to the respondent. What would constitute the 'details', is left to the realm of surmise and conjecture by the impugned order. 24. It also cannot be disputed that any request for particulars of third parties or a direction to furnish the same would require to be considered in the background of the ti....