( 1 ) BEFORE I examine the various arguments which were advanced before me on the merits of the petition I must refer to two objections of a preliminary nature which were urged by Mr. I. M. Nanavati learned advocate appearing on behalf of Bharat Kala Bhandar Limited in answer to the petition in so far as the petition was directed against Bharat Kala Bhandar Limited. Mr. C. C. Gandhi learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Company and the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Directors also supported Mr. I. M. Nanavati in these preliminary objections. The first preliminary objection was that in a petition under sec. 397 or 398 of the Companies Act 1956 the Court has no jurisdiction to set aside a transfer effected by a Company in favour of a third party except in a case falling under sec. 402 (f ). The argument briefly was that sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act 1956 were on a true construction aimed at putting an end to a continuing state of affairs and not at compensating the minority shareholders for a wrong which was no longer a continuing wrong and that the remedy given by those sections being a preventive remedy no order could be made