TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 1037
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y till final orders are passed in the above Company Petition. 2. The 1st Respondent- Company has only 4 shareholders namely, the applicant herein and the 2nd Respondent, 3rd Respondent and the 4th Respondent, each holding 1/4th of the total paid up capital of the Company. The 2nd Respondent and the 3rd Respondent acted as the directors of the Company. In the meanwhile, on account of the operation of Section 164(2) and 167(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, the Respondent No.3 got disqualified on 01.11.2017 on account of the statutory defaults in another Company, M/s. India Middle East Broadcasting Network Pvt. Ltd, in which the 3rd Respondent K.N. Marzook was a director. The said company is liable to be struck off under Section 248 of the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cles of Association of the 1st Respondent- Company, they are not eligible to be the directors of the Company. Hence, the alleged appointment of the above two persons viz: K. M. Jiyas and Nihal Kasmi on 14-02-2019 who are not members of the 1st Respondent-Company has no validity in law. 5. The counsel submitted that none of the alleged 5 directors on the Board of the Company are now qualified to continue as directors and there is no validly constituted Board of directors for the 1st Respondent- Company in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. It is from the contention that the Company is now run by a gang of four usurpers consisting of the 3rd Respondent, 4th Respondent and the above two strangers viz: K. M. Jiyas and N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t No. 1 filed a miscellaneous petition, being M.P. No. 31 of 2005 on the ground that the Rectification Petition could not have been filed as a continuity of the earlier proceedings before the Delhi High Court. For uncertain reasons, the matter dragged on before the IPAB for quite some time and ultimately vide orders dated 9.3.2012 the IPAB dismissed the Rectification Petition on the ground that it was filed after a lapse of about 10 years from the date when registration was obtained by Respondent No. 1. The IPAB took the view that Rectification Petition was wrongly filed in the Delhi High Court as jurisdiction vested in the Madras High Court. Therefore, presentation of the petition before the IPAB on 2.11.2004 was taken as the date of filin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P.No.428 of 2004, in accordance with law. The lower Court is directed to consider the Claim Petition (E.A. Sr. No.9014 of 2009 before passing any order in the petition filed by the decree holder for confirming the auction." 10. In view of the Judgement reported in AIR (29) 1942 Madras 446 (cited supra) and the order dated 10.12.2009, made in C.R.P.PD.(MD) No.2059 of 2009 [P.Seyyammal and Others v. R.Chinnasamy and Others], it is not for the Court to decide the issue at the time of numbering the plaint. After numbering the plaint, it is open to the Court to decide the issue on merits and pass appropriate orders. Therefore, this civil revision petition is allowed. The learned Principal District Munsif, Tenkasi, is directed to number the unn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch. It was numbered only on 27.08.2019 in Registry of NCLT, Kochi Bench and it was put up for first time on 03.09.2019 for presentation. 12. It is true that the main petition itself was filed on 27.08.2019, and from that date, 90 days period was already over and the matter was not heard or any order has been passed by this Bench before. It is found that this I.A was also filed after the specified period under Section 273 (1) of the Companies Act, 2013. I have heard both the parties and meticulously perused all the case records submitted before me. Considering the reliefs sought in the main Company Petition and allegations made against Respondents Nos. 1 & 3, particularly relating to the disqualification of applicant and Respondent No.3, I,....