TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 684
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tors as mentioned in the Articles of Association were Sr. Ramesh Chand Jain, Smt. Shail Dhingra and Smt. Sundesh Bala. Later the Shareholding of the Respondent Company has changed hands from its first directors by way of sale which was effected by means of Share Transfer Forms under Section 108(1A) of the Companies Act, 1956. Accordingly, the share certificates were also prepared and the shares were duly transferred to various persons and all the shares of the Company ultimately came to be purchased by the Petitioners No. 1 and 2. 3. Accordingly, Sumer Dutta "referred to as petitioner No. 1" came to hold 2290 shares out of total 2300 shares and was appointed as a whole time director on 05.12.2007 and remained as director till 05.08.2014 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance amount of Rs. 17,70,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lacs only) the shares held by the Petitioners would also be transferred in the name of the Respondents. Accordingly the Respondents paid the initial amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- and according to the terms of the unwritten settlement the Petitioners resigned from their posts of Directors with effect from 05.08.2014 under Section 168 of the Companies Act and Jitendra Prasad Verma "referred to as Respondent No. 2" was nominated as the Director of the Respondent Company. However, the Respondent failed to make the payment of the balance amount of Rs. 17,70,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lacs Only) and resultantly the shareholding of the Company was not transferred by the Petitioners, who continued to own the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....neither respond to the notice nor attended the meeting. 10. Further respondents have changed the address of the company and in the month of November, increased the subscribed shareholding of the company from 2,30,000/- to Rs. 10,00,000/- without any intimation to the petitioners. 11. Thus contended that the Respondent-Directors have sought to illegally deprive the petitioners of their legitimate share-holdings in the respondent-company and have thereby committed serious act of oppression and mismanagement by manipulation of records and committing a breach of trust of the petitioners. 12. Further it is matter of record that the notices were issued to the respondents which were duly served to the respondents by post as well as paper public....