T. J. THOMAS Vs. C. S. JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE reliefs prayed for in this petition under S.397,399 and 402 of the Companies Act,1956 read with 3 and 4 of the Kerala Non -Trading Companies Act,1961 read: ( i)That an account be taken for the receipts and disbursement of the income and expenditure of the company for the period from 20th December 1980 and the respondents who are bound to account for the same to the Company be ordered to pay to the Company the amount for which they have become liable. (ii)Remove the respondents from the management of the Company. (iii)To call a general meeting of the Company for the purpose of appointing members of the Managing Committee of the Company. (iv)Making the respondent liable for the cost of the petitioners. (v)To pass such other orders as this Hon 'ble Court may deems just.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection;and it is this: - The petition is not maintainable,the reason being that the petitioners are not members of the Sangam on the date on which the petition was filed.However,it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners were not members of the Sangam at all.On the other hand what they contend for is that the petitioners lost their membership as they failed to pay the subscription regularly and in terms of the 'Regulations '( Ext.A1)governing payment of subscription.Clause 6 of Ext.A1 is relevant in this context.It reads: 1 ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... (This has been amended and the payment,after the amendment is annual as is seen from clause 6 of Ext.B -2.In every other respect the clause is the same ). On a reading of this clause it is clear that a person who was once a member but later lost his membership for non payment of the subscription,will automatically cease to be a member.He,however again becomes a member on paying the arrears of subscription.

(3.) TO maintain an application under S.397 and 398,it is imperative that the petitioners should establish that at the time when they filed the company petition,they were members of the Sangam.The petitioners have not produced any documents to show that at the relevant time they were members of the Sangam although admittedly they are in possession of such documents.A reference to the following excerpts from the deposition of P.W.1 is relevant in the context: 1981 _n mu ((THELAW))oahri ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...