2020 (6) TMI 763

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o Rs. 25,000 in the year 2013 stating that for R2-4 holding 75% shareholding, they unfairly issued notice for increase of authorized share capital from Rs. 10,01 Crore to Rs. 11.01 Crore, subsequent to the increase of authorised capital, the Respondents again on 05.06.2020 issued another notice after filing this company petition to raise paid up capital on issual of rights issue for two lac shares of Rs. 10 each, out of those two lac shares, the petitioners together are offered fifty thousand shares of Rs. 10 each on pro rata basis. If the petitioners do not subscribe to the same, the equity shareholding of the petitioners would ultimately dilute from 25% to decimally low. To which, the Respondents have not shown any palpable reason for inc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....after paying out extra money to related parties. Answering it, the respondents' counsel has stated all these monies have been given to the suppliers, at some points of time, wherever extra money has gone to the suppliers that is shown as monies receivables to the company wherever less money has gone, there it has been shown as payables to the suppliers. Of course, both the sides have not agreed on this point. For because the petitioners saying these monies are not given to the suppliers/trade creditors, the respondents' side saying that all these transactions are in relation to discharging the functions of the company, we are of the view that it is a point for determination, therefore this Bench cannot say anything unless an affidav....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sary to raise equity to sustain and survive the company. For this reason alone, the company has issued notice to proceed with rights issue by not only notifying it to the petitioners but also by offering them to invest on pro rata basis. 6. It is a company run by the respondents with their money, the petitioners who invested only Rs. 25,000 cannot put spokes in the conduct of business in the name of showing this company has been created on partnership lines. To which also, the respondents' counsel has mentioned that this company was basically incorporated in the year 2011, thereafter the petitioners have invested Rs. 25,000 by taking 2,500 shares, and now the business of the company today is around Rs. 200 to Rs. 300Crore. It is all ....