C.A. No. 123 of 2016 in T.C.P. No. 44 of 2013 (Old CP No. 91/2006). Case: Prabhat Jhunjhunwala Vs Unicom Skytech Ltd. and Ors.. Company Law Board
| Case Number | C.A. No. 123 of 2016 in T.C.P. No. 44 of 2013 (Old CP No. 91/2006) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ajay Basutkar, Advocate and For Respondents: Ajay Kumar, Practicing Company Secretary |
| Judges | M.K. Shrawat, Member (J) |
| Issue | Company Law |
| Judgement Date | January 16, 2017 |
| Court | Company Law Board |
Order:
M.K. Shrawat, Member (J), (Mumbai Bench)
-
The Application (C.A.123/2016) filed by the Petitioner is mentioned when the court assembled. The Learned Representative of the Applicant/Petitioner has stated that the Application was filed on 26th October, 2016 seeking amendment in the main Petition. In support he has referred an earlier order of the then CLB, Mumbai Bench dated 14th March, 2014 wherein an observation was made as under:-
As prayed, the Petitioner is granted liberty to file an application for Amendment. As and when such application is filed and mentioned Appropriate order, may be passed.
-
In the Application it is stated that the Applicant is the original Promoter Director holding single largest shares which constituted about 49.51% of the shares. It is alleged that the respondent No. 2 in connivance with respondent No. 3 had illegally taken over the control of the respondent No. 1 Company. It is also explained that earlier an application was moved (CA No. 131/2013) seeking permission to file an application for amending the Petition on account of the fact that pursuant to an Order of Hon'ble CLB certain additional documents were filed by the respondents. Because of the additional information furnished by the Respondents the Petitioner sought permission to amend the Petition, which was claimed to be granted by the CLB vide Order dated 14th March, 2014 (supra). It has also been pleaded that the delay in seeking amendment was not deliberate because in the past years various events took place due to which the Petition could not be amended, however, for proper adjudication of the Petition the proposed amendment is required. In short the nature of amendment and consequential relief sought for are stated to be as under:-
To add prayer (aa) and (aaa) after prayer (a) as follow:
1. That this Hon'ble Bench may be pleased to remove R-3 Mr. Omprakash Jhunjhunwala as a Director of the Respondent No. 1 Company who has caused deliberate losses in operation of business of the company.
2. To Appoint an Independent Director on the Board of Respondent No. 1 Company for running day to day affairs of the Respondent No. 1 Company.
3. That this Hon'ble Bench may be pleased to declare that the purportedly held Annual General Meeting dated 30.09.2006, 29.09.2007, 29.09.2008, 29.09.2009, 30.09.2010, 30.09.2011, 29.09.2012 and 30.09.2013 as illegal, bad in law, null and void and non-est.
4. That this Hon'ble Bench may be pleased to declare...
To continue reading
Request your trial