2016 (12) TMI 1494

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. Havenkores Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. (TCP 28/2013), M/s. Heera Holdings & Leasing Pvt. Ltd. (TCP 29/2013) for supply of full copy of Members' Register and Annual Returns for the year 2011-12, 2010-2011, and 2009-2010. The petitioner has remained absent, but for pleadings are complete, since the point in this case being short regarding inspection and supply of copies thereof, this Bench has decided these three cases on merits basing on the pleadings and submissions made by the Respondent Company by invoking Rule 48 of N.C.L.T r/w Explanation to Rule 2 and Rule 3 of Order 17 of C.P.C. The petitioner being common in all these Petitions, their reliefs being common, the counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents being common, the plead....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ein for these companies violated the provisions of Section 163 of the Companies Act, 1956 for refusing to supply the copies as asked by the Petitioner. The Respondents Counsel submits that this Petitioner has been targeting Wadia Group companies for last several years trying to extort monies in any and every manner, for which only, this Petitioner in the past also played this trick firstly by seeking inspection, thereafter when it was not provided, he used to circulate notice of resolution before AGM of Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Company Ltd. and Britania Industries Ltd. seeking removal of the Chairman of both these companies on the ground the Chairman was unable to reply to the letters of shareholders. That time this Petitioner had only one sha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es stating that since he is not a shareholder, he is not entitled for supply of copies of the documents this Petitioner asked by further stating that he is entitled to the copies of the same from the MCA portal as well. The legal arguments advanced by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent is that he has no commercial interest, or for that matter any kind of interest in these companies because he is neither a shareholder or debenture holder nor even a person holding commercial interest in these companies. To say that he is not entitled to supply of copies of documents, the Respondent Counsel relied upon doctrine of ejusdem generis saying the word "any other person" mentioned in Section 163(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 is limit....