TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1884
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, Indian Inhabitant of Vis-Ram Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. on 30.03.2017, under Section 59 of the Companies Act, 2013, prays for the following reliefs: a. That this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 ordering them to rectify the Register of Members in respect of the 87600 fully paid shares of Rs. 10/- each re-instating the 146 persons set out in Exhibit-H to the Petition as the registered holders of the said shares and further to record the position of the Petitioner as Constituted Attorney of PAIPL the POA holder of the 146 persons solely entitled to deal with the said shares through persons authorised by it. b. That pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition: (i) The 1st Respondent be re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Members of the Rl Company in respect of Allotment of Shares that took place on 19.06.1996 i.e. after a period of 21 years. 4. It was also submitted that the petitioner interestingly bought only one share of R1 Company on 10.03.2017 and filed this instant Company Petition on 18.03.2017. All the Respondents have also relied upon an order passed by this Bench in Malaxmi Infra Ventures Pvt. Ltd. and another versus Brahmani Infratech Pvt. Ltd and others, which was upheld by the Hon'ble NCLAT in C.A.No.57 of 2017. In the case of Malaxmi, this Bench gave a finding that a member of the company cannot challenge the events or acts that was taken place in the company prior to his becoming a member of the company. 5. R2 submitted that his sha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner claims to be a Power of Attorney Holder of all his 146 applicants, has failed to submit even a single duly signed POA given by any of the applicants. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to file this instant petition. 9. Respondent No.1 has also questioned the Board Resolution dated 01.06.2015 by the representatives of the Petitioner Company that the said Board Resolution is a total absurdity to say the least since the said Board Resolution is dated much prior to the constitution to the Tribunal. 10. All the Respondents also submitted that the averments of the Petitioner is devoid of any merits and not maintainable in view of the settled Principles of Law, Unconceived, Not True, Illegal, Concocted, Fabricated, without any D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tition and case was posted on 22.08.2017 for final hearing. On 22.08.2017 counsel for the Petitioner and Respondents argued and the matter was posted to 08.09.2017. During the hearing held on 11.09.2017, the Petitioner was granted 10 days' time to file written arguments and the Respondents was also given time to file Written Arguments. 15. Since the Rl Company's shares are listed in stock exchanges, the shares are freely tradable in the stock exchange platform, R2 also confirmed that he does not hold even a single share in R1 Company and the 87,600 shares of the R2 were bought by R3 and these shares would have changed hands several times from the original 146 applicants and third party rights have been created since shares were tra....