2017 (11) TMI 1338

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t respondent company have filed Intervening Application No. 1 of 2017. 03. It is the case of the original respondents that original petitioner is having only one equity share of face value of Rs. 10/-each constituting 0.001% of shareholding of the first respondent company and, therefore, he is not eligible to file this Company Petition under section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956. It is also the case of the original respondents that as on date of filing Company Petition, there are 13 shareholders in the first respondent company as per the register of members and, therefore, the original petitioner being one in number is not eligible to file this Company Petition under section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956. It is the case of the original p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ef prayed in the petition is not granted in favour of the petitioner, they would suffer damage, injury, prejudice and great hardship. It is stated that one of the interveners Ms. Nasreen Kowsar was also appointed as employee of the first respondent company as Senior Accounts Officer - Admin. Cum Site Accountant in the pay scale CTC Rs. 5,04,000/- per annum and she was working in the same post since June 2012 and she was not paid salary arrears from December 2014 till October, 2015 totalling Rs. 5,83,470/-. It is also a grievance of the interveners that they have not been issued share certificates. According to the interveners there are seven members in the first respondent company since inception and the interveners together with petitioner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....otal members of the company. In the case on hand, admittedly, petitioners are having only 0.001% of shareholding of the first respondent company. As per the register of the first respondent company there are 13 shareholders as on the date of filing of original petition. Therefore, the sole petitioner who filed CP 119 of 2016 is not at all eligible to file this petition. Here it is necessary to refer to the decisions in K.N. Bhargava (supra) and Bajrang Prasad Jalan (supra). In the first decision there was a family agreement and it was taken into consideration in deciding the controversy in the decision. In the second decision it has nothing to do with the facts of this case. Therefore, original petitioner is not eligible to file TP 119 of 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by the petitioner in the main petition are totally different from the grievance of the interveners. 11. It is settled law that petitioner must have the consent of the required members or the members having required percentage of shareholding as on the date of the filing of the petition and it must be there by the date the petition was filed. Subsequent consent by other members or subsequent adding of other members do not fulfil the eligibility criteria laid down in section 399 of the Companies Act, 1956. Therefore, application made by the interveners to implead themselves as petitioners and make the petitioner eligible to file petition under section 397 is nothing but an afterthought. If, really the interveners have got any cause to file....