ARUN BALLAKUR Vs. KRISHNA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed challenging the order dated 30.4.2015 passed by the Company Law Board (for short 'Board'), whereby the objection of the appellants (respondents before the Board) with regard to maintainability of the petition filed by respondents No.1 to 5 under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') was in issue. By the impugned order, the objection of the appellants have been rejected and CA No.3/2014 filed by the 2nd appellant before the Board has been dismissed.

(2.) We heard Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Sri Vivek Holla, learned counsel for appellants as well as Sri K V Satish, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 5 and perused the records. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition has been heard and is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

(3.) It may be noted that although in this appeal there are other respondents who were arrayed as parties in the company petition, but learned counsel for the parties in this appeal have jointly stated that not only such parties were un-served in the company petition, even in the application (which has been decided by the impugned order dated 30.4.2015) only the first five respondents and the Company - M/s. Ace Forge Private Limited were arrayed as respondents, which would be clear from perusal of certified copy of the order which has been filed with this appeal. Hence, it is contended that the other respondents are not necessary to be served. Respondent No.6 (company) has two directors, one being appellant No.1 and the other being respondent No.1. As such, respondent No.6 (company) would be deemed to be served in this appeal.