Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

39. On the aspect of being able to exercise 'control', it is submitted by Mr. Mehta that a reading of Section 2(27), 2(59) and 2(60) of the Companies Act 2013, and also Regulation 5 along with the definition of 'control' under the SEBI Take Over Regulations would show that 'control' could be either direct or indirect and is not necessarily linked to any specific shareholding threshold and the statute itself contemplates that persons other than the Board of Directors can be said to be in 'control' with the Board answerable to them. Thus, it is submitted by Mr. Mehta, on the basis of the said provisions of law, that the concept of 'control' is factually myriad and a mixed question of fact and law. At this stage, under Order 39, Rule 4, the company defendant No.9 has stated on affidavit in the rejoinder Para 5(9), Page14 and in the affidavit of Amit Munjal director of defendant no. 9 filed in support of the rejoinder, that defendant No. 4, exercises management control over the company. Once the applicant itself, through its Director has stated on affidavit, that defendant No. 4 exercises management control over the company, then if the same is denied by plaintiff, it is a matter of evidence and trial, and at the stage of Order 39, Rule 4, the statement of the applicant ought to be accepted because control can be said to be exercised in many ways, and this would be a matter for trial for the plaintiff to disprove the assertion during course of trial.

6. Section 2(27), 2(59) and 2(60) of the Companies Act 2013, and also Regulation 5 along with the definition of 'control' under the SEBI Take Over Regulations would show that 'control' could be either direct or indirect and is not necessarily linked to any specific shareholding threshold and the statute itself contemplates that persons other than the Board of Directors can be said to be in 'control' with the Board answerable to them. The same being disputed fact, evidence needs to be adduced, clearly not at the present stage.