TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 41
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 2015 against Respondents No. 1 to 4 herein alleging certain acts of oppression and mismanagement. The said Petition came to be transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TP No. 123/397-398/NCLT/AHM/2016". During the hearing on 17.10.2016, it was noticed that all the Directors of 1st Respondent Company were not shown as Respondents and therefore this Tribunal directed the Petitioner to take steps to bring all the Directors of the 1st Respondent as 'Respondents' in the main Petition. Thereafter, the Original-Petitioner filed this Application seeking to add Respondents No. 5 and 6 herein as 'Respondents' in Company Petition No. TP No. 123 of 2016 and seeking permission to file copy of Consent Letters from the members supp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Company Petition. The Consent Letters of Rikin Patel, Hiren Patel and Prinit Patel who individually claim to be shareholders of 1250 equity shares are not even the shareholders in the Register of Members of the Company. In fact, late Mr. Surendra J. Patel who is the father of Rikin Patel, Hiren Patel and Prinit Patel was holding 1250 shares as shareholder of 1st Respondent Company. It is further stated that the Respondent Company has not received any intimation or application for transmission of the shares of late Mr. Surendra J. Patel in the names of Rikin Patel, Hiren Patel and Prinit Patel. It is stated that the Company Petition is filed to wrest control of the Respondent Company from the Respondents. Applicant filed Rejoinder stating....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for deciding the issues involved in the Company Petition. Therefore, original-Petitioner/Applicant is permitted to add proposed Respondents No. 5 and 6 as Respondent No. 5 and Respondent No.6 in TP No. 123 of 2016. 6. The Company Petition is filed by one shareholder, by name Mr. Kanakbhai Ratilal Patel, who is the present Applicant. In Page No.6 of the Company Petition, it is stated that 35,000 other equity shareholders of the 1st Respondent Company gave consent to the Petitioner to initiate the Company Petition against the ongoing oppression and mismanagement committed by the Respondents in the conduct of the affairs of the 1st Respondent Company. It is also stated in the Petition that the Petitioner along with other dissenting members ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso need not be gone into in this Application. 8. Another aspect raised by the Respondent is that the persons who gave Consent Letters are not there in the List of Shareholders. This is also a matter that need not be probed in this Application at this stage. When there is an averment in the Petition that Consent Letters were filed and when they were not in fact filed, and when it is stated by the Applicant that it was due to oversight, in such circumstances, there is no point in refusing the request of the Petitioner to file Consent Letters. The question whether the filing of the Consent Letters, after the filing of the petition, is sufficient compliance of Section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956 or not, is also a matter that need not be ....