TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 1200
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as dismissed as not maintainable. However, the appellants were given liberty to file a petition for rectification of the register of members under section 111A of the Act and in the event of their being successful in the said petition, they were granted further liberty to file a petition under section 397/398 of the Act. 2. The relevant facts of the present case are that appellants are real brothers, nephews and nieces of Mr. Brij Mohan Khanna, respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 1 is a family company. The appellants filed a company petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Act being Co. Pet. No. 61/2007 before CLB against respondents on the ground of oppression and mismanagement. Per contra, respondents filed Company Application No. 213/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the title/transfer to shareholding is in dispute, requirement of section 399 of the Act is not relevant. In this regard, Mr. Sagar relied upon following judgments:- (a) Satish Chandra Sanwalka v. Tinplate Dealers Association (P.) Ltd. [2001] 107 Comp. Cas. 98 (CLB - New Delhi). (b) Turner Morrison Ltd. v. Jenson & Nicholson (India) Ltd. [1998] 93 Comp. Cas. 347 (CLB - New Delhi). (c) C. Vasudevamurthy v. Associated Oxides (P.) Ltd. [2009] 150 Comp. Cas. 339 (CLB - Chennai). 5. Mr. Sagar relied upon Sangramsing P. Gaekwad v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad [2005] 123 Comp. Cas. 566 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of the Court to grant appropriate relief under section 397 of the Act is indisputably of wide amplitude.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct and not under section 397/398 of the Act. Accordingly, he submits that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. Having heard the parties, I am of the view that the present appeal is not an appeal on facts but it gives rise to a question of law, namely, whether a composite petition under section 397 and/or section 398 read with section 111A of the Act is maintainable. 11. In my opinion, it cannot be said as a proposition of law that no composite petition under sections 397, 398 and 111A of the Act is ever maintainable. In fact, in a large number of petitions filed under section 397 and/or section 398 of the Act, the primary allegation of oppression and mismanagement is that the faction that is in control of the company has either inten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith their respective share certificates but they were also throughout aware about removal of their names from the register of members of the company. However, after a detailed perusal of the impugned order, I find that though the CLB has painstakingly noted the submissions of both the parties, yet it has not adjudicated upon the same. In fact, CLB has given no finding/conclusion on the contentions raised by the respondents while opposing the maintainability of the petition except observing that the appellants were at liberty to file a petition under section 111A of the Act and in the event they succeed in the said petition, they would be at liberty to file a petition under section 397/398 of the Act. The impugned order to my mind is a non-r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osed amendment ought to have been granted because the basic structure of the suit has not changed and that there was merely change in the nature of relief claimed. We fail to understand if it is permissible for the appellants to file an independent suit, why the same relief which could be prayed for in the new suit cannot be permitted to be incorporated in the pending suit. 19. As discussed above, the real controversy test is the basic or cardinal test and it is the primary duty of the court to decide whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. If it is, the amendment will be allowed; if it is not, the amendment will be refused. On the contrary, the learned Judges of the High Court without decidin....