Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: cma in M/S. Crystal Dwellings Private Limited vs Surat Singh Malhotra on 4 August, 2022Matching Fragments
3. Appellant alleges that during his tenure, the first respondent has committed several illegalities, played fraud and acted against the interest of the appellant company, misappropriated crores of rupees belonging to the appellant by withdrawing them or depositing them into his own account or to his family members' accounts, increased his shareholding from 1,25,000 shares to 19,65,000 shares illegally. The first respondent misused his capacity as Managing Director of the company and had transferred lands belonging to the appellant company illegally in his PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J CMA Nos.274 & 281 of 2022 favour and in favour of his family members, who are the respondents 2 to 6 herein.
5. It is further alleged that the first respondent had created Board Resolutions dated 22.04.2021 and 16.06.2021, where under authorized one J.Ramaswamy Sastry, employee of the company to execute sale deeds in favour of the respondent nos.15, 17 to 21. It is further alleged that the respondent no.1 failed to handover the records and documents belonging to the company.
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J CMA Nos.274 & 281 of 2022
PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J CMA Nos.274 & 281 of 2022
9. I.A.No.772 of 2021 is filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC to grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 6 and 15 to 21, from alienating the suit schedule properties in favour of the third parties, till further orders.
10. By common order dated 25.02.2022 the trial Court dismissed both I.As. Challenging the decision of the trial Court these two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are preferred.
24. Juxtaposing Section 59 with Section 241, it is apparent that while under Section 59 a company can also file complaint or application before the Tribunal, under Section 241 only a member can file such a complaint. A company has no remedy before the Tribunal. Further, the course suggested by Section 242 (2)(g) can be adopted when the Tribunal is PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J CMA Nos.274 & 281 of 2022 satisfied that winding-up process be set in motion. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that jurisdiction of the civil Court is ousted. 25.1. In Avanti Explosives Private Limited vs. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor district and another7, the jurisdiction of civil Court vis-à-vis the Companies Act was considered by the learned single Judge of this Court, as he then was. Briefly the facts to the extent relevant are, a proposal to shift the Registered Office of the petitioner company from Secunderabad to Tirupathi was accepted by the Board of Directors. At Tirupathi, the company was to be located in a premises as a lessee of another firm by name Avanthi Enterprises, which in turn was the principal lessee from the owners of the building. The 2nd respondent- plaintiff was a partner of Avanthi Enterprises with whom the petitioner- company entered into the sub-lease. It was alleged that 2nd respondent did not specifically disclose the fact of his being a partner of Avanthi Enterprises to the company as required by Section 293 read with Section 299 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. On that ground, the other Directors are said to have passed a resolution holding that the plaintiff has become disqualified from being a Director with retrospective effect from 13.06.1980. Second respondent filed the civil suit contending that he was present at the meeting which took place on 13.02.1984 and no such resolution disqualifying him was passed. He claimed that 2nd 7 1985 SCC Online AP 55 PNR,J & Dr.GRR,J CMA Nos.274 & 281 of 2022 respondent-plaintiff continues to be the Managing Director of the 1st defendant (petitioner-company) and for further declaration that any Board meeting held by the petitioner subsequent to 13.02.1984 is null and void and also for further declaration that any change effected in the composition of the Board of the petitioner subsequent to 13.02.1984 is illegal. He also sought for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the office of the 2nd respondent- plaintiff as Managing Director in the day-to-day affairs of the petitioner- company.