Mr Vinod Kumar Sharma vs M/S Bhawani Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. & Ors

68/ NDS 2010 By the tapuened order, the Tribunal allowed the C.A preferred by Respondent and held that the petitioner (Appellant herein} to the appeal do not poesess requisite shareholding in the company on the date when the acts of oppression and mismanagement was complained of and thereby allowed the C.A and dismissed the C.P preferred by the appellant.

2. On perusal through the recerd, we find that the Appellant has 0.5 % of the shareholding of the total shareholding of the company. He fled the petition under Section S97 and SOS of the Companies Act, 1996 alleging, inter-alia, "oppression & mismanagement by the Respondents.

A eee eee eee ee eee eee eee OO EE EEE EIEN SIE EEA EIEIEEE

ay The Respondents brought to notice of the Tribunal the provisions of Section 399 of the Companies Act, 1986 which reads as follows:-

"200, Right te apply under Sections 397 and 398 -- {1} The following members of a company shall have the right to apply ander section 307 ar So8:-

{aj m. the case of a company having a share capital, not less than one hundred members of the cormpany or not less than one- tenth of the total number of its members, whichever is less, or any member or members holding not less than one- tenth of the issued share capital af the company, provided that the applicant ar applicants have paid all calls arel other sume due on their shares;

fg) in the case af a company not having a share capital, not jess than one- fifth of the total nurnber of its members."

4, Admittedly, the petition wa:

ot fled by 100 members of the company, Phe Ld. Counsel of the Ar

if alee accepts that on the qemmbers in the cornpany. lant Was jess than

i/10% of the total number of its ment that the Appellant > of the company t of the Compare

3. OF es, the C.P having dismissed as non-maintainable, w J ne reason to interfere with the same. The appeal is Accordingly dis

Sd fe

(Justice 8.J. Mukhopadhaya} Chairperson

od /-

iMr, Balvinder Singh} Member (Technical)