TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 163
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thereby holding 12.06 % in M/s. Nagina Processors Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter called as the first respondent company) alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the first respondent company. 02. Petitioner along with Mr. Naresh Thakordas Mandlewala and Mr. Hemant Thakordas Mandlewala who are the brothers of respondents No. 2 & 3 came to an understanding to start a process house of their own with 50% investment by each group i.e. petitioner's group 50% and respondents No. 2 & 3 group 50% as a quasi-partnership between two groups. Petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3 identified the first respondent company which had huge tract of land. The process house/factory of Nagina Processors P. Ltd. had been demolished by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shares. 04. While searching website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs in the month September, 2015, petitioner came to know that respondents No. 2 and 3 did not allot 50% shares to the petitioner. Construction of Rudraksha Synthetics P. Ltd. started in the land owned by the first respondent company. Construction of the process house of Rudraksha Synthetics P. Ltd. in the land owned by the first respondent company was started in the first quarter of 2010 and on 15.08.2010 civil works were completed. The first machine was commissioned in the last quarter of 2010 and the second stenter machine was installed in August 2012. 05. Respondents started informing the petitioner that the process house is running in loss. Petitioner was not even a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom the petitioner's group to the Board of Directors of the first respondent company to commensurate with 50% shareholding (d) To direct respondents No. 2 and 3 to pay back illegal gains by virtue of handing over of the first respondent company to third parties. (e) To order investigation to the affairs of the first respondent company since March 2010. 07. Respondents No. 2 and 3 filed IA No. 8 of 2016 stating that petitioner has no eligibility to file this petition. In the said petition, respondents No. 2 and 3 chose to deny the allegations made against them. Respondents No. 2 and 3 also filed reply. Case of respondents No. 2 and 3 is that the petitioner is not having eligibility to file this petition i.e. 10% of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g in the first respondent company subject to the petitioner provide 50% of the capital of the first respondent company and in Rudraksha Synthetics P. Ltd. petitioner has not placed any material on record. It is a fact that, petitioner and his wife are shareholders in the first respondent company as well as in Rudraksha Synthetics P. Ltd. has invested huge amounts in the Nagina Processors P. Ltd. as well as Rudraksha Synthetics P. Ltd. The theory of respondents No. 2 and 3 that they transferred the amounts to the accounts of the petitioner and it was invested in Nagina Processors P. Ltd. and Rudraksha Synthetics P. Ltd. is not at all believable in view of reply notice given by the petitioner to the lenders of money. But there is no material ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s petition alleging oppression and mismanagement is filed has no legs to stand. It is in the knowledge of the petitioner that the activities in the process house (Rudraksha Synthetics P. Ltd.) was stopped on 01.02.2013. It is a fact that the petitioner worked as Printing Master in Rudrakksha Synthetics P. Ltd. which is housed in the land of Nagina Processors P. Ltd. till May, 2013. It is a fact that petitioner joined Ravi Exports Ltd. after leaving Rudraksha Synthetics P. Ltd. in May 2013. When such is the case, petitioner questioning the handing over of Rudraksha Synthetics P. Ltd. to Devi Processors is not within his competence. Petitioner is not one of the Directors of the first respondent company at any point of time. Moreover, when the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f attorney on 23.09.2015 authorising the petitioner to file this petition against the first respondent company. The shareholding of the petitioner and his wife together is more than 10% of the paid-up share capital. No doubt, neither in the cause title, nor in the body of the petition it is specifically stated that the petition is filed by petitioner on his behalf and as GPA of his wife. But it is averred that himself and his wife held more than 10% of paid-up share capital of the first respondent company and, therefore, they are eligible to file this petition. Petitioner also enclosed original power of attorney executed by his wife in his favour. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner is ineligible to file this petition. 14. Petit....