2017 (1) TMI 1678

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e past few occasions when this Application was posted for hearing the Respondents have sought timeto seek clarification on the issue of implementation of the Order of the CLB, Mumbai Bench (supra). After providing sufficient opportunity now this Application is enlisted for final hearing. 2. From the side of the Applicant Ld. Representative has stated that an Order was passed on 17th November, 2014 by the CLB, Mumbai Bench (C.P. No.59 of 2012) wherein several directions have been given while finally disposing of the Petition, however, the grievance of the Applicant is that the direction no. vii has not been followed by the Respondents, hence liable for contempt. He has clarified that this Application, therefore, revolves around the non-co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of both the parties, as well as on due consideration of the facts of this case, prima facie it appears that the Respondents are at fault in not obeying the directions of the respected coordinate Bench. While delivering the final verdict, the CLB Bench has held that 'the Petitioner has successfully established his allegations regarding the of oppression and mismanagement(reproduced from para 39 of the Order). The directions were unambiguous that a valid EOGM is to be convened to allot further shares. The Petitioner has, therefore, asked the Respondent No.l Company by several letters to furnish copy of 'Register of Members'. The copies of the said letters are on record. The compliance was not made by the respondents on the ground....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of contempt. On due consideration of the totality of the circumstances, it is directed as under:- (i) That instead of initiating contempt proceedings against the Respondents, as an alternate, it is hereby ordered that the Respondents shall pay a sum of (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the Applicant as cost of the litigation. It is expected that this fine / cost may prevent the Respondents for future non-compliance. I have taken this view following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Jitesh Trading Company vs. Gita Fabrics P. Ltd (1996) 86 Comp Case 453 Guj. Order dated 19.9.1995. (ii) That it is hereby ordered that the Respondents shall not alienate or deal with the assets of the Responde....