2013 (9) TMI 1309

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Company Law Board, New Delhi dated 8.5.2012..The Company Law Board under the order impugned has dismissed the petition made by the appellants under Sections 397, 398, 402, 403 and 406 of the Companies Act alleging certain acts of oppression and mismanagement by Ms/ Tiwari Sheet Grah Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "Company"). The Company Board in the order impugned has recorded that the grievance of the petitioner was two-fold :- (a) Company has indiscriminately and disproportionately made allotment of 25227 equity shares thereby creating a situation that Mahaveer Tiwari gets the control over the Company in question. It was the case of the appellants that the allotment of shares as alleged and shown in the meeting of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le rejoinder affidavit by the Company Law Board vide order dated 25.8.2011. For nearly four months, no rejoinder affidavit was filed and on 3.1.2012, it was stated on behalf of the applicants that they did not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit and the matter be listed for final arguments. Accordingly, final arguments were heard on 24.4.2012 and 27.4.2012. The averments made by the appellants and the documents filed by them and the averments and documents filed by respondent no. 4 which were un-rebutted were examined. The Company Law Board after considering the application made to the Company on 15.9.2007 by Mahaveer Tiwari, Vijay Tiwari and Gayatri Devi and the resolution of the Board dated 1.10.2007 duly signed by appellant Vijay Tiw....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....submission and acceptance of Form No.2 by the Registrar of Company is only a Ministerial Act and mere defect in Form-2, is by itself not sufficient to rebut the strong presumption arising from the filing of un-rebutted documents namely the signed application and the signed resolution of the Board referred to above. This Court may only record that in the present appeal also there is no specific challenge to the finding that the application dated 15.9.2007 did contain signatures of both namely Gayatri Devi and Vijay Tiwari. Similarly, there is no challenge to the finding that the resolution dated 1.10.2007 did bear the signatures of one of the appellants namely Vijay Tiwari along with that of Mahaveer Tiwari. In these set of circumstances, ....