2026 (6) TMI 717

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... P.V. Uttara, Smt. Radhika Prasad, Smt. Razana, Shri. Mohammed Azif S., Smt. Latha Prabhakaran, Smt. Anjana K., Sri. Pramod Nair, Sr. Advocate For Petitioner Smt. Sylaja S.L., Govt. Pleader. JUDGMENT The petitioner is stated to be one among the original promoters of the 2nd respondent company. The 3rd respondent was another promoter along with the petitioner herein. The petitioner contends that somewhere in 2024, the 3rd respondent herein, by deceit, transferred various shares held by the petitioner in his name. On that basis, the petitioner further contends that the 3rd respondent herein made himself the Managing Director of the 2nd respondent company with effect from 02.01.2024, as evidenced by the Board Resolution at Ext.P21, wher....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tructed by Ms. Akanksha Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. K.M. Jamaludheen, learned counsel for the 1st respondent herein, Sri. Santhosh Mathew, learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd respondent Company, and Sri. Joseph Kodianthara, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri. Vijay V. Paul, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent herein. 3. Sri. Pramod Nair, learned Senior Counsel, would submit that the attempt of the respondents for carrying out an IPO is to be stayed by this Court for more than one reason. According to him, as pointed out in the writ petition, the shares which are now offered for IPO originally were held by the petitioner, and it is through deceitful means that the 3rd respondent has obtained the afore shar....