Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. The case of the company and HVL, being the appellants in APOT No. 289 of 2009 and 297 of 2009 respectively is that no case had been made out in the subject application which would call for segregating the votes of their shareholders and for restraining HVL from acting as the chairman of the meeting. The main grievance of the RJM, being the appellants in APOT No. 292 of 2009 on the other hand is that the voting rights of the promoters' group ought to have been frozen as the shares through which such voting right was derived formed part of the estate of PDB. On her death and on subsequent death of RSL there was no legitimate person in control of such estate, and the estate, it was alleged, was in medio.

11. The company has been represented in these proceedings by Mr. Anindya Mitra, whereas HVL has been represented by Mr. P.C. Sen and Mr. Pratap Chatterjee has appeared for different companies and institutions who are shareholders of Birla Corporation. They have taken a common stand in their submissions. Mr. Samaraditya Pal, with Mr. Sudipto Sarkar have appeared on behalf of RJM. Mr. S. N. Mukherjee, have appeared for three other shareholders, whereas Mr. P. S. Sengupta argued for another shareholder (respondent no. 6 in APOT NO. 289 of 2009) of the company, who are all petitioners in the original petition. The arguments advanced by them also run on a common thread, in substance seeking freezing of voting rights in respect of the controlling block of 62.90% shares in the company.

12. In this judgment, I shall deal with the submissions of the contesting parties in a composite manner since though they have represented different individuals or entities, there have been many overlapping arguments on the part of the learned counsel appearing for the rival groups. I shall refer to the parties who have supported the stand of Birla Corporation Ltd. as the company, and the individuals who have supported the RJM's case as the applicants. Hearing of the A.P.O.T. No. 289 and 292 of 2009 was conducted simultaneously. Since the appeal of Birla Corporation was filed prior in point of time, I heard the learned counsel appearing in support of the company first and then the learned counsel for RJM and their supporting parties. As regards the appeal of Harsh Vardhan Lodha (APOT No. 297 of 2009), a preliminary objection was taken on its maintainability. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties on this point, I held that the appeal was maintainable. Subsequently, the appeal was heard on 20 August 2009. Hearing of the appeal was concluded on that date itself, as most of the points urged in this appeal had already been argued in the two previous proceedings. HVL was impleaded as one of the respondents in both the appeals, and was represented by his learned counsel. Since arguments were advanced mainly on point of law in all the three appeals, formalities of filing of paperbooks or formal service of notice of appeal were dispensed with. An informal paper book however was filed on behalf of the appellants in APOT of 292 of 2009 containing relevant pleadings and orders, which were not included in the stay petitions taken out in connection with these appeals. The petitions seeking stay of operation of the order impugned were also not heard in isolation, as the appeals were taken up for hearing directly after admitting them.

".......I deny that the companies referred to as M.P. Birla Group of Companies held 62.9% of the total paid up share capital of the company as alleged or at all. I deny that PDB was in possession or control of the management and affairs of the Company. She was appointed a Director in the same way as all other directors of the Company and was unanimously appointed as Chairman of the Company....."

The statements made in this affidavit were adopted by HVL by filing an independent affidavit, and both these affidavits have been made annexures to the application taken out by RJM in connection with their appeal, being APOT No. 292 of 2009.