KANAKBHAI RATILAL PATEL Vs. BALAJIKRUPA ESTATES (P ) LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in brief, that are germane for the disposal of this Interlocutory Application, are as follows:

(2.) In this Application, 2nd Respondent filed Reply stating that the proceedings in the main Petition are barred by limitation in view of the fact that the cause of action arose on 23.1.2012 and the Company Petition has been filed on 5.10.2015. It is stated in the Reply that since no Consent Letters are in existence Applicant failed to produce the Consent Letters along with the Original Petition and therefore such Consent Letters cannot be allowed to come on record. It is also stated that Consent Letters are not on Affidavit and they are not notarized. It is stated that Consent Letters when compared with list of shareholders do not tally. The Consent Letters consenting shareholders collectively hold only 32,500 equity shares as against 35,000 equity shares mentioned in the Company Petition. The Consent Letters of Rikin Patel, Hiren Patel and Prinit Patel who individually claim to be shareholders of 1250 equity shares are not even the shareholders in the Register of Members of the Company. In fact, late Mr. Surendra J. Patel who is the father of Rikin Patel, Hiren Patel and Prinit Patel was holding 1250 shares as shareholder of 1st Respondent Company. It is further stated that the Respondent Company has not received any intimation or application for transmission of the shares of late Mr. Surendra J. Patel in the names of Rikin Patel, Hiren Patel and Prinit Patel. It is stated that the Company Petition is filed to wrest control of the Respondent Company from the Respondents. Applicant filed Rejoinder stating that the Original Petition is not barred by law of limitation since it is filed prior to coming into force of section 433 of Companies Act, 2013 which came into force from 1.6.2016. It is also stated in the Rejoinder that the Consent Letters are of the family members and therefore the question of non-existence of Consent Letters is not there. The names of the persons who gave Consent Letters are reflected in the Annual Return and therefore they are the shareholders.

(3.) The points for consideration are (1) whether the Original-Petitioner/Applicant can be permitted to bring on record Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 herein as 'Respondents No. 5 and 6' in TP No. 123 of 2016; and (2) whether the original-Petitioner/Applicant can be permitted to bring on record the Consent Letters of the shareholders that are supporting the Petitioner at Exhibit-4 of the main Petition.