Dhiren Pratapmal Bhandari v. DB Shapriya Construction Ltd.

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers 2017 TaxPub(CL) 0895 (NCLT-Ahd) Dhiren Pratapmal Bhandari v. DB Shapriya Construction Ltd. COMPANIES ACT, 1956 --Oppression and mismanagement--Petitioner did not fulfil eligible criteria of section 399Filed intervening application in support of petition--Whether subsequent consent by other members or subsequent adding of other members fulfilled eligibility criteria of section 399--Where shareholder filed petition under sections 397 and 398, but he was having only 0.001% of shareholding in the company, therefore, he was not eligible to file the petition as per section 399 and also subsequent consent by other members or subsequent adding of other members did not fulfil the eligibility criteria laid down in section 399, thus, the petition was to be dismissed. --Shareholder held 0.001% shareholding in the company. He filed petition under sections 397 and 398, but he was not eligible to file the petition. Therefore, two other shareholders of the company filed intervening application in support of the petition on the ground that the company had not paid amount of salary and lent amount. Company challenged the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the shareholder was not eligible to file the petition, as he did not fulfill eligible criteria of section 399. Further that, the intervening application was not to be allowed, as non-payment of lent amount and salary to the interveners was not a matter of oppression and mismanagement and also subsequent adding of other members did not fulfil the eligibility criteria of section 399.Held: - Shareholder was having only 0.001 % of shareholding in the company. There were 13 shareholders as on date of filing of the petition, therefore, the shareholder was not at all eligible to file the petition. Further that, the intervening application showed that main grievance of the interveners was non-payment of lent amount and salary, which was totally different from the grievance of the shareholder. It is settled law that shareholder must have the consent of the required members or the members having required percentage of shareholding as on the date of the filing of the petition and it must be there by the date the petition was filed. Subsequent consent by other members or subsequent adding of other members did not fulfil the eligibility criteria laid down in section 399. Hence, the petition along with the intervening application was to be dismissed. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers 2017 TaxPub(CL) 0895 (NCLT-Ahd)

Dhiren Pratapmal Bhandari v. DB Shapriya Construction Ltd.

COMPANIES ACT, 1956

--Oppression and mismanagement--Petitioner did not fulfil eligible criteria of section 399Filed intervening application in support of petition--Whether subsequent consent by other members or subsequent adding of other members fulfilled eligibility criteria of section 399--Where shareholder filed petition under sections 397 and 398, but he was having only 0.001% of shareholding in the company, therefore, he was not eligible to file the petition as per section 399 and also subsequent consent by other members or subsequent adding of other members did not fulfil the eligibility criteria laid down in section 399, thus, the petition was to be dismissed. --Shareholder held 0.001% shareholding in the company. He filed petition under sections 397 and 398, but he was not eligible to file the petition. Therefore, two other shareholders of the company filed intervening application in support of the petition on the ground that the company had not paid amount of salary and lent amount. Company challenged the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the shareholder was not eligible to file the petition, as he did not fulfill eligible criteria of section 399. Further that, the intervening application was not to be allowed, as non-payment of lent amount and salary to the interveners was not a matter of oppression and mismanagement and also subsequent adding of other members did not fulfil the eligibility criteria of section 399.Held: - Shareholder was having only 0.001 % of shareholding in the company. There were 13 shareholders as on date of filing of the petition, therefore, the shareholder was not at all eligible to file the petition. Further that, the intervening application showed that main grievance of the interveners was non-payment of lent amount and salary, which was totally different from the grievance of the shareholder. It is settled law that shareholder must have the consent of the required members or the members having required percentage of shareholding as on the date of the filing of the petition and it must be there by the date the petition was filed. Subsequent consent by other members or subsequent adding of other members did not fulfil the eligibility criteria laid down in section 399. Hence, the petition along with the intervening application was to be dismissed.