CP No. 56(ND)/2015. Case: Santosh Goswami Vs Sneh Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd.. Company Law Board
| Case Number | CP No. 56(ND)/2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Virender Gande, Sr. Adv., S.K. Giri, Tarun Mehta and Shelly Khawna, Advs. and For Respondents: U.K. Chuaudhary, Sr. Adv., Vikas Mehta and Anushree Menon, Advs. |
| Judges | M. M. Kumar, C.J. (Chairman) |
| Issue | Company Law |
| Judgement Date | August 17, 2015 |
| Court | Company Law Board |
Order:
M.M. Kumar, C.J. (Chairman), (New Delhi Bench)
-
(i) This is an application with a prayer for vacating order dated 23-07-2015, which was passed in the absence of the applicants. In the alternative, it has been prayed that Respondent No.-1 Company-Applicant be permitted to shift its channel/studio and other properties from Anand Parbat to its new Noida office. It is appropriate to set out below the order dated 23-07-2015 which reads thus:
1. The Petitioner has pleaded in unequivocal terms that a copy of the petition has been served on each of the Respondents. The proof of service has been placed on record in the form of receipts of the Post Office sending notices by speedpost.
2. Despite service of notices, the Respondents have failed to appear.
3. Shri Virender Ganda, Ld. Sr. counsel has addressed arguments on merits highlighting how after the death of the husband of P-1 on 05.03.2015 her right to be inducted as shareholder is being defeated. According to the Ld. Counsel the Petitioner's husband held 9.53% of the total paid up share capital of the R-1 company.
4. I have considered the submissions for grant of interim relief so as to keep the interest of Petitioners and R-1 company intact.
5. Accordingly following interim directions are issued:-
(a) The Respondents are directed to maintain status quo in the shareholding of R-1 company.
(b) They are further directed not to shift the channel/studio and its properties from the existing premises at Anand Parbat.
(c) The Respondents are further restrained from selling, parting, alienating, encumbrance, renting, leasing or giving right of use to any third party or creating third party interest etc. of assets of the R-1 company and to maintain the status quo in respect of all assets of R-1 company.
(d) It is further directed that the Respondents shall not shift any statutory books/registered office of the R-1 company without express permission of this Board.
(e) The Petitioner shall also be permitted by the Respondents to allow inspection of documents/records and obtain copies of all statutory documents and records. The Bench Officer is directed to authenticate such statutory documents/records which may be produced before him on 10.08.2015.
6. I therefore make it clear that interim directions issued today shall be complied with in letter and spirit and any violation thereof shall incur severe punishment as provided by law.
-
(ii) Mr. U.K. Chaudhary Ld. Sr. counsel for the Respondent No-1 Company-Applicant has argued that it was falsely claimed before this Board on 23.07.2015 that a copy of the petition had been served on each of the Respondents and the proof of service was placed on record. According to Mr. Chaudhary speed post can now be tracked and a copy of the tracking report has been annexed with the application which would show that Respondent No. 2 was served on 27-07-2015 at 4:39 P.M. (ANNEXURE 1 Page No. 14). Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 were served on 23-07-2015 after 3:00 P.M. Likewise Respondent Nos. 5 & 5 were served on 24-07-2015 after 3:00 P.M.
-
(iii) It is urged that in the absence of any service, the false statement has been made to claim that notices were served. It was done with calculate design for the purpose of obtaining interim order at the back of the Respondents. According to the Ld. counsel, there is no presumption of service in law as the speed post now provide the facility of tracking the delivery of...
To continue reading
Request your trial