CL : Where petitioners failed to substantiate allegations of oppressions and mismanagement and petition was filed for collateral purpose to escape possible liabilities that might arise on account of recovery proceedings initiated by bank, such petition could not be allowed
■■■
[2014] 51 taxmann.com 344 (CLB - Mumbai)
COMPANY LAW BOARD, MUMBAI BENCH
Bharat Savla
v.
Hirak Plastics (P.) Ltd.
ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
CP NO. 121 OF 2008
SEPTEMBER 16, 2013
Section 241, read with section 242 of the Companies Act, 2013/Section 397, read with sections 398 and 402, of the Companies Act, 1956 - Oppression and mismanagement - Whether in absence any registered instrument evidencing transfer of company's property, allegation of siphoning off funds in such matter was to be rejected - Held, yes - Whether where tax consultant's appointed by petitioner's group as statutory auditor's of company failed to make statutory compliances as a result of which there was a lapse in filing statutory returns and company had to pay penalties, respondent group could not alone be held responsible - Held, yes - Whether where statement of account's of company were signed by persons belonging to rival group, respondent group alone could not be blamed for any misappropriation of funds; further petitioner founder director could not be absolved from his responsibility to look after affairs of company - Held, yes - Whether since instant petition was filed for collateral purpose as petitioner was trying to escape from possible liabilities that might arise on account of recovery proceeding initiated by bank under SARFAESI and DRT Acts, such petition could not be allowed - Held, yes
■■■
[2014] 51 taxmann.com 344 (CLB - Mumbai)
COMPANY LAW BOARD, MUMBAI BENCH
Bharat Savla
v.
Hirak Plastics (P.) Ltd.
ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
CP NO. 121 OF 2008
SEPTEMBER 16, 2013
Section 241, read with section 242 of the Companies Act, 2013/Section 397, read with sections 398 and 402, of the Companies Act, 1956 - Oppression and mismanagement - Whether in absence any registered instrument evidencing transfer of company's property, allegation of siphoning off funds in such matter was to be rejected - Held, yes - Whether where tax consultant's appointed by petitioner's group as statutory auditor's of company failed to make statutory compliances as a result of which there was a lapse in filing statutory returns and company had to pay penalties, respondent group could not alone be held responsible - Held, yes - Whether where statement of account's of company were signed by persons belonging to rival group, respondent group alone could not be blamed for any misappropriation of funds; further petitioner founder director could not be absolved from his responsibility to look after affairs of company - Held, yes - Whether since instant petition was filed for collateral purpose as petitioner was trying to escape from possible liabilities that might arise on account of recovery proceeding initiated by bank under SARFAESI and DRT Acts, such petition could not be allowed - Held, yes
No comments:
Post a Comment