Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Shri Robin Gupta ... vs Shri R. Gupta, Shri Sanjeev Gupta And ... on 31 December, 2007
9. Furthermore, it was argued that the present petition is not maintainable as no cause of action is accrued in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents to resort to Sections 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956. The reliefs sought in the present case do not warrant action under Sections 397, 398 of the Companies Act. The petitioners have miserably failed to make out a case under Sections 397 & 398 of the Companies Act, and therefore the present petition should be outrightly rejected. Further, it was argued that a Petition under Sections 397/398 Companies Act, cannot be made for settling personal scores among the family members. The relief sought should be to put an end to the acts of oppression/mismanagement and not for any oblique purpose. Reliance was placed on Dr. S. Mangalam Srinivasan v. Mani Forgings P. Ltd. and Ors. 2006(129) Compcas 0544 CLB and Ramesh Bhajanlal Thakur v. Sea Side Hotel (P) Ltd. SCL 2000 (23) 164. There are no allegations of oppression of the petitioners. The petitioners have miserably failed to show that the acts of respondents are oppressive against them. Their grievance, if any, is qua director and not qua shareholders.