PALGHAT EXPORTS P LTD Vs. CHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals are against the judgment of the Company Court Judge in proceedings under Ss. 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Act' ). Appeal, M. F. A. No. 65 of 1993 is by respondents 1 to 3 and 5 in the petition, C. P. No. 27/1988. Appeal, M. F. A. No. 64 of 1993 is by the 4th respondent in C. P. No. 27/1988. Respondents 1 to 4 in both the appeals are the same. Respondent No. 5 in M. F. A. No. 65/93 is the appellant in M. F. A. No. 64/93 and respondent No. 6 is the Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Company Law Administration, New Delhi. In M. F. A. No. 64/1993 respondent No. 5 is the Company - The Palghat Exports Pvt. Ltd. 132/147, Shanmugha Road, Palghat. Respondent No. 6 is K. Santhosh Bebbar, Managing Director of the Company. Respondent No. 7 is the Chairman of the Company and respondent Nb. 8 is the Company Director, L. Viswanathan. Respondent No. 9 is the Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Company Law Administration, New Delhi. Respondent No. 1 to 4 are the petitioners in C. P. No. 27/1988. was the first petitioner in C. P. No. 27/1988, who is the father of respondents 2, 3 and 4.

(2.) AS a unit, respondents 1 to 4 in both the appeal held 7 out of the total 28 equity shares issued by the Company. Appellants in M. F. A. No. 65/92 are the Company, Managing Director, Chairman and a Director. AS stated earlier, appellant in M. F. A. No. 64/93 is another Director who was the 4th respondent in C. P. No. 27/1988.

(3.) APPELLANTS in both the appeals are very much aggrieved by the judgment and they have filed the appeals contending that the Company Court's findings arc not legal and valid both on facts and law. Now to dispose of these appeals, we feel that it requires a short resume of the statement of facts which are given in detail, is necessary. Now, we turn to the facts.