TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1619
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he maintainability of the Company petition being No. 151/2015 filed by the petitioner under sections 397, 398, 399, 402, 403 and 406 of the Companies Act, 1956 and under Sections 58 and 59 of the Companies Act, 2013. 2. On perusal of the Company petition filed by the petitioner, the following facts emerge: 1. The share certificates of the petitioners are stolen to which they filed an FIR on 28-01-2007 and asked the company to issue duplicate share certificates on 29-01-2007, but the same was not issued as alleged. 2. The illegal appointment of the Respondent No. 3 as Director and as also illegal allotment of share to Respondent(s) sometime in 2005 and 2006. 3. No notice of any meetings are issued to the petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppointment of the Respondent No. 3 and has also never agitated with regard to the non-receipt of any notice of any meeting till the filing of the instant Company Petition. (b) On perusal of the record, it reflects that the petitioner filed one FIR on 28th January, 2007 before the Officer-in-charge, Bidhan Nagar South Police Station, Salt Lake City, Kolkata with regard to the missing of share certificate for 10,000 equity shares from filing cabinet, which he assumed to be stolen from his possession(Annexure C of P-136 of the petition) (c) Another application is filed by the petitioners to the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal on 4th May, 2010 from 792, Real Court Milton, Ontario, Canada with a request for helping in getti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd categorically stated on affidavit that her husband M.P. Singh (now deceased) and Smt. Archna Singh (P2 of the CP 151/2015) were never the shareholders of M/s. Jain Link Pvt. Ltd. and as such the CP No. 686/2010. filed by M.P. Singh, was not maintainable as also the CA No. 46/2011. filed by Archna Singh(Petitioner No. 2) was also not maintainable(Annexure D Page 74 para b of the CA No. 46/2011 arising out of the Company Petition No. 686/2010). 11. Even if it is taken from 2009, then even the petitioner cannot surmount the delay of over more than 5 years, whereas with regard to the illegal appointment of the Respondent No. 3 which was around 2005, as alleged, the petitioner never challenged the appointment, when he himself admitted that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. Ltd. Unreported iv) M/s. Arbo technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Delhi Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - Unreported v) T. Arivandandam Vs. TV Satyapal & Anr. (1977) 4 SCC 467 vi) Esquire Electronics Vs. Netherlands India Communications Enterprises Ltd. - Unreported vii) State of UP & Anr. Vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. & Anr. (1991) 4 SCC 139 viii) Jitendra Kumar Gupta Vs. Sukhbir Singh Saini The Non-applicant(s)/petitioner(s) relief upon the following case laws: i) (2003) 1 SCC 557 - Saleem Bhai & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ii) [2009] 148 Comp Cas 756 (CLB) - Raajratna Metal Industries Ltd. Vs. K and S Consulting Group P. Ltd. & Ors. iii) [2009] 149 Com Ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner has failed to surmount the delay of 6 years in bringing his claim. 18. Condoning the delay by this court would mean court is ignoring and superseding all laws of procedure and limitation. It is a fundamental principal of administration of justice that the courts will aid those who are vigilant and who do not sleep on their rights. In other words, the court would refuse to exercise their jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves them after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. In this regard, reliance may be placed on seven judge judgment rendered in the case of state of M.P. vs. Bhai lall Bhai and others, AIR 1964 SC 1006-----where the delay is more than the period prescribed by the limitation....