V.K. Building Services Pvt. Ltd vs Mr. S.R. Mohan & Ors

V.K. Building Services Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant

Versus

Mr. S.R. Mohan & Ors. ...Respondents

Present:

For Appellant : Mr. Goutham Shivshankar, Advocate

ORDER

08.03.2018 One Mr. S.R. Mohan filed the application under Section 241

and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 which is pending before National Company

Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') Bengaluru Bench in C.P.

No. 5/2017. The appellant has been arrayed as 8th respondent in the said

petition. The appellant (8th respondent) filed an application for deleting his

name from the array of the respondents on the ground that he is not a

shareholder of the company (3rd respondent before the Tribunal) and whatever

agreement has been reached between the appellant (8th respondent) has been so

reached with another company i.e. 5th respondent company before the Tribunal.

The appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 8th January, 2018

passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench which rejected

the application preferred by him.

2. On perusal of the record, we find that perhaps Mr. S.R. Mohan and

another alleged oppression of the company (3rd respondent before the Tribunal). According to them the said company (3rd respondent) is the largest shareholder

of the 5th respondent company with which appellant (8th respondent) has reached

the agreement. The allegation of Mr. S.R. Mohan and another (Petitioners before

the Tribunal) is that the Board of Directors of the Company (3rd respondent) has

taken oppressive decision, as the largest shareholder of the 5th respondent

company by endorsing illegal agreement with the 8th respondent in the meeting

of 5th Respondent company. In this background prayer has also been made to

set aside the sale agreement between the 5th respondent company and the

appellant (8th respondent). Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact by the

Tribunal, the Tribunal holds that the appellant (8th respondent) is a necessary

party.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find no ground to

interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. No cost.

[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[ Justice Bansi Lal Bhat ] Member (Judicial)

/ns/uk