ANISHA K SHAH Vs. FASTENESE PRIVATE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant herein has presented Company Petitions Nos. 62 to 64 of 1992 under Sections 433(e) and (f), 433(i)(a) and 439(i) and (b) of the Companies Act, for winding up of the three private limited companies, namely, Fastener Private Limited, Toolex Private Limited and Brightenex Private Limited, her husband Ketan L. Shah, her brother-in-law Amt. L. Shah and her father-in-law L. M. Shah, it is not disputed, held the majority of the shares with certain minor shareholders with the other dependant members of the family of her father-in-law L. M. Shah. They managed the affairs of the three companies in such a way that the father-in-law L. M. Shah held, of one company as the Managing Director; the brother-in-law, of one Company as the Managing Director and her husband, on one Company as the Managing Director. She was married to Ketan L. Shah on 31-3-1991. She stayed with her husband in the house in the occupation of other members of the in laws' family for some days. She was only newly wed. When she had returned to her parents and was away from Pondicherry, it is stated, her husband committed suicide on 10-6-1991. Her case in brief is that she was denied the status of a widow of her husband by her father-in-law and brother in-law and other members of their family and leaving the details how their relationship got estranged, in sum that she found no provisions for her, not even the transfer of shares of the above three companies is her name and when she found, it was no longer possible to ensure that she received what legally belonged to her from her father-in-law and brother-in-law, she moved in a civil suit in a sub-court in Pondicherry for partition of the properties of the family in accordance with law and filed petitions for winding up of the Companies in this Court on grounds inter alia that she has received no assets as a share in the Companies she has moved a petition for appointment of a provisional liquidator to take charge of the affairs of the companies. Respondent - Companies have filed applications seeking dismissal of the petition for appointment of a provisional liquidator. The trial Court has accepted the case of the respondents and declined to appoint any provisional liquidator. It has, accordingly, dismissed both the applications.

(2.) . While moving the appeals, learned counsel for the appellant has also moved a petition for an interim order for appointment of a provisional liquidator and/or such order / direction that may be deemed fit and proper. Respondents have entered appearance after notice. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and found that not only the application for interim order or direction, but the appeals themselves can be disposed of and accordingly heard the learned counsel for the parties in full.

(3.) Respondents who have entered appearance have not denied the fact that the three companies are private limited companies and that the above named father and sons had a chunk of shares in their names in all the three Companies. They have also not denied the claim of the appellant that she is the widow of one of the two sons who along with their father managed the affairs of the three companies and that after his death, she alone is entitled to inherit all assets that exclusively belonged to him and/or in common and/or in jointness with other members of the family including his father and brother, who along with him were in the management of the three companies.