ANIL KUMAR PODDAR Vs. CESC LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner herein filed petition under Section 167 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'), seeking directions upon the Respondent -company for providing inspection and supplying of copies of detailed annual accounts of all the subsidiaries of the Respondent -company and particulars of the employees ; for keeping the records available for all the members in future ; for postponement of the annual general meeting ('AGM') of the company for the year 2009 -10 which is scheduled to be held on 23rd July, 2010, to such date which covers 21 days' notice period and reasonable period for study of report by the Petitioner shareholder ; for awarding exemplary costs to be paid by the Respondent -company; and for such other orders that this Bench may deem fit and proper to render justice. In the interim reliefs, same prayers are sought for.

(2.) THE case of the Petitioner herein is that he received a notice by post on 19th July, 2007, from the Respondent -company about holding of AGM which is scheduled to be held on 23rd July, 2010, without accompanying the documents that are required to be given to the shareholders of the company along with the notice of the AGM. Immediately after seeing the notice, according to the Petitioner, he rushed to the company on 19th July, 2010 and gave requisitions, by three consecutive letters being annexures Al, A2 and A3, for allowing him inspection of documents as mentioned under Sections 212(8), 217(2A) and 219(1)(b)(iv) of the Act and supplying copies thereof. It is seen that all the letters were received by the Respondent -company on 19th July, 2010 and endorsed on the copy as "Contents Not Verified". In pursuance of it, learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Respondent -company refused to supply copies along with the notice copy, as enunciated under the statutory provisions mentioned above. Hence, the Petitioner sought copies of the documents mentioned above and postponement of the AGM which is scheduled to be held on 23rd July, 2010.

(3.) ON hearing the arguments of either side, this Bench, having gone through the materials placed before it, finds that the Petitioner has failed to place any postal cover or anything to show that he has received the notice and annual report on 19th July, 2010 itself and on seeing the annual report appended to the notice, this Bench noticed it as dated 21st June, 2010, it is evident that the Respondent -company disclosed in its annual report for the year 2009 -10, the financial statements of the holding company as well as its subsidiaries. From the letters shown as annexures A1, A2 and A3, although it is evident that the letters were received by the company on 19th July, 2010, by putting a seal on the copies as "Contents Not Verified", but it was not shown that he was refused inspection of documents that are required under law. The Petitioner, on the very next day, moved this petition for postponement of the annual general meeting to be held on 23rd July, 2010, on the ground that he was refused inspection of documents, but not filed any document disclosing inspection of documents was refused to the Petitioner. Since there being no document disclosing refusal from the company, it cannot be construed as the Petitioner was not given opportunity to take inspection of documents as mentioned under Sections 212(8), 217(2A) and 219(1)(b)(iv) of the Act.