CA No. 230 of 2011 in CP No. 859 of 2010. Case: Raj Shekhar Agrawal and Another Vs Pragati 47 Development Ltd. and Others. Company Law Board
| Case Number | CA No. 230 of 2011 in CP No. 859 of 2010 |
| Judges | B.S.V. Prakash Kumar, Member (Judicial) |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Rule 1; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 397, 398 |
| Citation | 2012 (110) CLA 454 |
| Judgement Date | May 31, 2012 |
| Court | Company Law Board |
Order:
B.S.V. Prakash Kumar, Member (Judicial), (Kolkata Bench)
-
The applicants, petitioners in the main petition, filed this application with a prayer to abandon the main reliefs (n) to (r) and the interim prayer (k) in the main petition with a liberty to initiate fresh proceedings before a civil court over the issue dealt with in reliefs supra. The case of the petitioners in the main petition is that R-2 and 3 along with other respondents have been acting prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners attracting the ingredients of section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'). In the main petition, the petitioners arrayed various companies as respondents saying some respondent-companies are sister concerns of R-1-company and some are connected with the business of R-1-company seeking various reliefs including the reliefs, which the petitioners now asking for deletion with a liberty to initiate fresh proceedings. The main reliefs (n) to (r) and interim relief (k) are as follows:
Main reliefs contained in prayers (n) to (r)
(n) The purported agreement dated 11th December, 2007, allegedly made between PSIDL the respondent No. 8 herein and Citystar the respondent No. 16 herein for issuance of non-cumulative debentures is a forged and fabricated document and the said purported agreement be adjudged illegal, null and void and directed to be delivered up and cancelled.
(o) Declaration that the purported arbitration proceeding initiated by Citystar the respondent No. 16 herein against PSIDL the respondent No 8 is a collusive proceeding and all records of the said proceeding including the purported awards made therein be adjudged illegal, null and void and directed to be delivered up and cancelled.
(p) Declaration that the respondent No. 8 continues to be lawful owner of the said 2,22,49,999 equity shares of Rs. 10 each all fully paid-up in BAPL the respondent No. 12-company.
(q) Declaration that the respondent No. 16 has no right or interest whatsoever over the said 2,22,49,999 equity shares held by the respondent No. 8 in the respondent No. 12-company or any part or portion thereof.
(r) Perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from acting upon or giving any effect or further effect to the purported agreement dated 11th December, 2007 allegedly entered into by and between the respondent No. 8 and the respondent No. 12 referred to in paragraph 6.23 hereinabove.
Interim relief contained in prayer (k)
(K) Injunction restraining the respondents from acting upon or giving any effect or further effect to the purported agreement dated 11th...
To continue reading
Request your trial