Mrs. Pooja Joshi Vs. Century Gases and Petro Chemicals - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....the respondent would take over the company. in the hearing held on 17.9.2002, none was present on behalf of the respondent. likewise, in spite of notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondent in the hearing held on 10.9.2003 and as such the matter was heard ex-parte.3. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the 2^nd respondent has not complied with the terms of the consent orders, the petition may be closed by granting the prayers of the petitioner in ca 60 of 2002. since by not complying with the terms of the consent order and not appearing for the hearing, the 2^nd respondent appears to have abandoned his interest in the company.therefore, without going into the merits of this case, i declare that the petitioner is entitled to manage and control the affairs of the company including its customers and dealers.4. the petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to cost.

Judgment:

1. This matter was fixed for hearing on 10.9.2003 and in spite of notice none was present on behalf of the respondents. Accordingly, this matter was heard ex-parte.

2. The petitioner claiming to hold 80% of the shares in M/S Century Gases & Petro Chemicals Limited has filed this petition alleging that the 2^nd respondent, in his capacity as the managing director of the company, has indulged in various acts of mismanagement in the affairs of the company by siphoning of huge amount of the company and as such has prayed for an investigation into the affairs of the company and also for removal of the 2^nd respondent as the Managing Director of the company. During the course of the proceedings, as recorded in the order dated 30.4.2001, a compromise proposal was arrived at, according to which the petitioner was to go out of the company on receipt of Rs. 101 lacs from the 2^nd respondent. In the order dated 30.5.2001, it was recorded that the respondent was to bring a draft for Rs. 35 lacs on 13.6.2001 as a part payment. Thereafter, in the hearing held on 13.6.2001, as recorded in the order sheet, the respondent was to pay a sum of Rs. 101 lacs of which a sum of Rs. 10 lacs was to be paid as the first instalment on or before 30.6.2001 and the balance was to be paid by 31.3.2002. It was also recorded in that order that as and when a total sum of Rs. 25 lacs was paid, the petitioner would hand over the company to the respondent. On 4^st March, 2002, the petitioner filed CA 60 of 2002 complaining that the respondent had not complied with the various consent orders of this Bench and as such sought for allowing the petitioner to run the business of the company without the interference of the 2^nd respondent. In the hearing held on 17.7.2002, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the company had been ordered to be wound up by Karnataka High Court and that after consulting his clint, he would inform this Bench whether the respondent would take over the company. In the hearing held on 17.9.2002, none was present on behalf of the respondent. Likewise, in spite of notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondent in the hearing held on 10.9.2003 and as such the matter was heard ex-parte.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the 2^nd respondent has not complied with the terms of the consent orders, the petition may be closed by granting the prayers of the petitioner in CA 60 of 2002. Since by not complying with the terms of the consent order and not appearing for the hearing, the 2^nd respondent appears to have abandoned his interest in the company.

Therefore, without going into the merits of this case, I declare that the petitioner is entitled to manage and control the affairs of the company including its customers and dealers.

4. The petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to cost.