CL: Where petitioner failed to substantiate allegations of oppressions and mismanagement such as his removal from directorship, appointment of new director and allotment of shares without his knowledge, etc. and in fact was found to have mismanaged affairs and siphoned of funds of company, he was not entitled to any relief
■■■
[2014] 49 taxmann.com 94 (CLB - Mumbai)
COMPANY LAW BOARD, MUMBAI BENCH
Vipul Dilkhushbhai Rathod
v.
Ram Agri-Infra India (P.) Ltd.
ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
C. P. NO. 17 OF 2013
JUNE 16, 2014
Section 241, read with sections 242 and 246, of the Companies Act, 2013/Section 397, read with sections 398, 402, 403 and 406, of the Companies Act, 1956 - Oppression and management - Whether where due to objection raised by bank to sanction loan to company on account of petitioner's negative
CIBIL report, petitioner resigned from directorship so as to enable company to seek financial assistance from bank, allegation of his illegal removal would not survive - Held, yes - Whether where paid-up capital was enhanced to fulfil bank's condition to sanction loan and petitioner himself refused to subscribe any further shares, he could not allege illegal allotment of shares by respondents to themselves - Held, yes - Whether where (i) appointment of one of new directors following due procedure was consented to by petitioner and (ii) appointment of another director was effected when petitioner had already tendered his resignation, petitioner could not allege illegal appointment of directors - Held, yes - Whether further since petitioner director mismanaged affairs of company and was found to have siphoned off company's money in sale of properties, he would not be entitled to any relief - Held, yes [Paras 14, 30, 33, 34 and 47]
■■■
[2014] 49 taxmann.com 94 (CLB - Mumbai)
COMPANY LAW BOARD, MUMBAI BENCH
Vipul Dilkhushbhai Rathod
v.
Ram Agri-Infra India (P.) Ltd.
ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
C. P. NO. 17 OF 2013
JUNE 16, 2014
Section 241, read with sections 242 and 246, of the Companies Act, 2013/Section 397, read with sections 398, 402, 403 and 406, of the Companies Act, 1956 - Oppression and management - Whether where due to objection raised by bank to sanction loan to company on account of petitioner's negative
CIBIL report, petitioner resigned from directorship so as to enable company to seek financial assistance from bank, allegation of his illegal removal would not survive - Held, yes - Whether where paid-up capital was enhanced to fulfil bank's condition to sanction loan and petitioner himself refused to subscribe any further shares, he could not allege illegal allotment of shares by respondents to themselves - Held, yes - Whether where (i) appointment of one of new directors following due procedure was consented to by petitioner and (ii) appointment of another director was effected when petitioner had already tendered his resignation, petitioner could not allege illegal appointment of directors - Held, yes - Whether further since petitioner director mismanaged affairs of company and was found to have siphoned off company's money in sale of properties, he would not be entitled to any relief - Held, yes [Paras 14, 30, 33, 34 and 47]
No comments:
Post a Comment