COMPANY LAW BOARD
Smt. Vimla yadav, J.
Collyer Logistics International Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Collyer India Freight Forwarding (P.) Ltd. -Respondent
C.P. No. 149 of 2007
Decided On : 03-08-2009
Arun Kathpalia, Vanita Bhargava, Abhijeet Swaroop,K.N. Popli, Pankaj, Rajeev Chauhan, Mohit Dhaul, Manish Koshal
In this order I am considering Company Petition No. 149 of 2007 filed by M/s. Collyer Logistics International Ltd. (the Petitioner) under Sections 397, 398 and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 against M/s. Collyer India Freight Forwarding Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (the Respondents) alleging oppression and mismanagement.
2. M/s. Collyer India Freight Forwarding Pvt. Ltd. (R-1 Company) was incorporated on 02.05.2006 having its registered office at B-505, Ansal Chambers-I, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-66 with the authorized capital of Rs. 10,00,000/-divided into 1,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each. The issued, subscribed and paid up capital of the Company was Rs. 10,00,000 divided into 1,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The main objects of the company are to carry on the business of cargo agents, cargo movers, freight forwarding of cargo and goods and to act as custom clearing, mercantile agents, consulting, freight contractors, liaising agents on all matters relating to shipping liners, air freight, warehousing, etc. The Petitioner (namely M/s. Collyer Logistics International Ltd., a foreign company, which is a member in R-1 Company) has sought declaration that the purported meeting held on 2nd May, 2006, and the resolution passed therein regarding purported appointment of R-3 and R-4 to act as Directors of the Company is bad, illegal, null and void and not binding upon the Company and the Petitioner; declaration that the resolution passed in the EOGM of the company held on 27th July, 2006 to be held illegal, null and void; the R-2 to 4 and their group be directed to sell their, entire shareholding in the Company to the Petitioner or their nominee(s) on such terms and conditions as the CLB may deem fit and proper; perpetual injunction be given restraining the Respondents and any of them whether by themselves or by their servants, agents and/or assigns or otherwise howsoever from allegedly giving effect to the purported resolution purportedly adopted in the purported Board meeting alleged to have been held on 29th March, 2007 in any manner whatsoever; liberty be given to the Petitioner to constitute the Board of Directors of the Company with the nominees of the Petitioner; injunction restraining the Respondents from convening or conducting or holding any Board meeting or general meeting of the Company; injunction restraining the Respondents from dealing with the immovable property of the Company in any manner whatsoever; injunction restraining the R-2 to 4 from exercising any rights or receiving any benefits in respect of their shareholding in the Company; injunction restraining the R-2 to 4 from transferring their shareholding in the Company to any other persons in any manner whatsoever; restraining the R-2 to 4, their agents, assignees, nominees from diverting business of R-1 Company to CIFF Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and restrain them from operating business of CIFF Logistics Pvt. Ltd. from premises of R-1 Company; restraining the R-2 to 4 from drawing salary and expenses from R-1 Company; restraining the R-2 to 4 and their agents, assignees, nominees to use the trade mark in the name "Collyer" and the logo assigned by CLI to the R-1 Company.
3. Vide the CLB's order dated 10.11.2008 R-6 to R-8 were impleaded in this company petition as under:
"C.A. No. 459/08 heard. Considering the nexus between the parties and keeping in view the fact that R-1, 2 and 3 have not complied with the orders of the CLB dated 29.10.07 whereby they were stopped from doing business in the names of R-6, 7, 8 which allegedly is nothing but a benamidar/alter ego/association of R-1, in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, I hereby allow the petitioner's C.A. No. 459/08 impleading Respondents 6 to 8 as necessary and proper parties. R-6 to 8 are hereby allowed to file reply to the C.P. within two weeks, the petitioner is allowed to file rejoinder within two weeks thereafter. Adjourned to 12.12.08 at 02.30 p.m."
4. It was argued by the Counsel for the