ALIM AHUJA Vs. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS filed this petition under Section 633 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act, 1956') in the matter of notices dated 12th of July, 1999 of the respondent Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan, Jaipur. In the petition the petitioners prayed for grant of following relief, - -

(2.) THE facts of the case are that M/s. Fancy Stones (India) Limited came to be incorporated under the provisions of the Act, 1956 on October 29, 1979 with its registered office at C -72, Sarojini Marg, 'C' Scheme, Jaipur. The registered address of the Company changed a couple of times within the city of Jaipur, but ultimately it was the same as the place where manufacturing/processing of the company's products was being done at Village Pasoond, near Rajasmand, District Udaipur in Rajasthan. Undisputedly the petitioners accepted the Directorship of the Company. The petitioners averred that though they were the Directors of the Company but main affairs thereof Were being dealt with by other Directors. Shri Ajay Sharma was the Executive Director of the Company. Besides two other Directors, Shri Ramesh Advani, Resident of Ranchi Club Compound, Ranchi, Bihar, was made the Executive Director after sometime, and Shri Ratan Banka, Resident of J.V. Colony, Andheri (East), Mumbai, was also a Director in the same Company. There was one Director from the Rajasthan Industrial Investment Corporation (for short, 'the RIICO'). It is stated that the management of the Company continued till 26th of March, 1988 and thereafter it was taken over by the RIICO. The petitioners have not produced any material on the record that the management of the company had been taken over by the RIICO after 26th of March, 1988. Otherwise also I have my own reservation whether the RIICO could have taken the management of the Company. The RIICO for non -payment of the dues or for some other default, may take possession of the Unit or other property of the Company but not the management of the Company.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioners were not the active Directors of the Company and as being not connected with the management of the Company and are completely unaware of the operational aspects of the company's business as well as other day -to -day business and as such they deserves to be granted the benefit of Section 633(2) of the Act, 1956.