2013 (11) TMI 1227

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es Act, 1956. Respondent No.3 is the Union of India. 2. The petitioner is neither a shareholder nor a creditor of the first respondent-company. He has no connection whatsoever with the company. He, however, states that he is entitled to inspection of the documents/record referred to in section 163, including the entire Register of members since inception. Mr. Sathe, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 denied that the petitioner is entitled to the same either under section 163 or otherwise in view of the fact that the petitioner is not concerned with the first respondent in any manner whatsoever. He also alleged that the petition is filed mala fide. The petitioner is in the habit of buying only one or just a ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 2012, rejected the petitioner's request to provide the full copy of the Register of members stating that he was not entitled to the same. 4. The petitioner, accordingly, by an e-mail dated 22nd February, 2013, complained to the Registrar of Companies - respondent No.2 and requested him to prosecute the first respondent and it's Directors on his behalf. 5. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under section 163 of the Companies Act before the CLB, Western Region Bench of Maharashtra. Before the CLB, the petitioner sought an order directing the first respondent to furnish the copy of its statutory Register and records. 6. The petitioner also filed the present petition, directing respondent No.2 to prosecute on his behalf, ....