RAJ KUMAR BHATIA Vs. AV LIGHT AUTOMOBILES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners moved this company petition under sections 397 & 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') against the respondent 1 -company called Av Light Automotives Ltd. and other respondents primarily seeking declaration of first and third petitioners removal as directors on 1st April, 2004, increase of issue and allotment of 3,33,000 equity shares as invalid and to restore P -1 and P -3 as directors of the company. The petitioners one Mr. Raj Kumar Bhatia (holding 69,980 shares) arrayed as first petitioner, Saketh Fab. (P.) Ltd. (holding 30,000 shares) as second petitioner, the wife of first petitioner, Mrs. Kavitha Bhatia (holding 10 shares) as third petitioner, one Mr. Abnash Chander Gupta (holding 10 shares) as fourth petitioner in the cause title, but in the body of the petition, Saketh Fab (P.) Ltd. shown as fourth petitioner, Kavitha Bhatia shown as second petitioner, Abnash Chander Gupta shown as third petitioner. In order to avoid confusion, I refer them as mentioned in the Body.

(2.) THERE are three families called Mr. Raj Kumar Bhatia (P -1 family), Mr. Anil Anand (R -2 family) and Mr. Rajan Sharma (R -3 family) came together and promoted R -1 company on 7th March, 1996 for carrying business of manufacturing automobile components with its registered office at 325A, 2nd floor, Masjid Moth, South Extension -II, New Delhi. Sometime later, i.e., on 15th March, 1996, R -1 -company was converted into public limited company. The authorised share capital of R -1 -company as on 27th March, 1996 was one crore rupees divided into 10 lakh equity shares of Rs. 13 each. These three families promoted this company and contributed ten lakh rupees each holding 33.33 percent to maintain equal paid up shareholding among three families with two directors from each of these three families.

(3.) THE petitioners further submitted that the respondents made allegations of siphoning of funds by R -2 and 3, but no details are given in support of their contention, since there being no details or no material to make it an issue, this aspect was not dealt with holding it is not incumbent upon the Bench to discuss an issue not supported with details and material papers.