Dismissed

Shri Rajiv Narhari Sardesai and Two Ors. v. Dynamech Cranes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Mar 2012COAPP/23/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed CLB Company Appeal challenging CLB Order forcing defaulting party to accept lower bid. Court upheld CLB powers under Sec. 402 Companies Act, 1956 to resolve deadlock where highest bidder failed to pay. Appeal found tenable.

What did the court decide?

Compnay Appeal dismissed; CLB Order directing appellants to accept lower bid upheld; Company Application disposed.

Shri Rajiv Narhari Sardesai and Two Ors. Vs Dynamech… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 Coapp-l-27-11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

COMPANY APPEAL (L) NO. 27 OF 2011 IN COMPANY LAW BOARD APPLICATION NO. 75 OF 2011 IN

¶4

CLB COMPANY PETITION NO. 11 OF 2010.

¶5

Shri Rajiv Narhari Sardesai & Ors.

¶6

..Appellants.

¶7

vs.

¶8

Dynamech Cranes pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

¶9

..Respondents.

¶10

Mr. Oka, i/b. Sagar Joshi, for Appellants. Mr. R. Shah, i/b. Raval Shah & Co., for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

¶11

CORAM :- S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE :- 5TH MARCH, 2012.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

The above Appeal is filed u/s 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 impugning the Order dated 7^th June 2011 passed by the Company Law Board, Mumbai Bench, (CLB) directing the Appellants to accept the bid amount of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, execute Share Transfer Deeds in their favour and hand over all the original share certificates, resignation letters, resigning from the post of Directorship and Statutory Registers and records, if any, with them within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said Order dated 7^th June 2011.

¶14

The facts in the matter are briefly set out hereunder:

¶15

2 Coapp-l-27-11

¶16

The Appellants are 50% shareholders in the Respondent No.1 Company – Dynamech Cranes Private Limited and the balance 50% shareholders in the Respondent No.1 Company are Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The Appellants and the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the only Directors of the Respondent No.1 Company. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed Company Petition No.11 of 2010 under sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956 before the CLB.

¶17

The CLB, vide its Order dated 23^rd March 2010, appointed M/s. Shankar & Kapani, Chartered Accountants to ascertain the fair value of the shares of the Respondent No.1 Company. The said Chartered Accountants submitted their Valuation Report dated 31^st May 2010 and have, after considering the average of Net Asset Value (NAV) and Profit Earning Capacity Value (PECV) of the Respondent No. 1 Company opined that the fair value of the equity shares of Rs. 100/- each of the Respondent No.1 Company is Rs.12,369.70 (Rupees Twelve Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Nine and Seventy Paise Only).

¶18

The CLB by its Order dated 6^th December 2010, after inter alia recording that the Appellants and the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein each hold 50% shares in the Respondent No.1 Company and due to serious acrimony between them are unable to see eye to eye, called for sealed quotations from both the parties duly quoting the value of the shares taking into consideration the valuation done by the Valuer. The parties were directed to furnish all the records available with them before the Bench Officer of CLB and each party was allowed to inspect the documents with the Bench Officer and to

¶19

3 Coapp-l-27-11

¶20

obtain copies thereof. It was ordered that the sealed covers would be opened in the presence of the parties and the highest bidder would pay the value of the shares to the other group and purchase their shares and the sellers would exit the Company after receiving the payment. The transfer of shares and the tendering of resignation to the Board by the outgoing shareholder and Director was to be done simultaneously. It was further recorded that the said Order would be binding on the parties.

¶21

On 21^st December 2010, both the parties made a statement in the presence of the Bench Officer that they will be submitting their bids as directed by the CLB.

¶22

Since the Appellants delayed submission of their bid, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed Company Application No.11 of 2011 seeking directions from CLB to fix the date for submission of bids. The Appellants sought further time to submit their bids on the ground that they got their documents very recently and need to get expert opinion for submitting their sealed bids. In view thereof, CLB, by its Order dated 27^st January 2011, directed the parties to submit the sealed bids before the Bench Officer of CLB on or before 26^th February 2011. The date for opening the bids was fixed as 7^th March 2011 at 10.30 a.m. By the said Order CLB clarified that if any party fails to submit the bid by 26th February 2011, it will be treated as the party not being interested and the process of opening the bids will proceed as per the date fixed.

¶23

4 Coapp-l-27-11

¶24

The Appellants thereafter on 3^rd February 2011 filed Company Application No.20 of 2011 seeking recall of the Order dated 6^th December 2010 i.e. directing the parties to give their bids and prayed for separation of the Company according to the holdings of the parties. CLB, by its Order dated 10^th February 2011, recorded that after the CLB passed its Order dated 6^th December 2010 directing the parties to quote the value of the shares by submitting the same in sealed covers after inspection of documents of the Company, the parties inspected the records and documents, and after obtaining copies of the same made a statement in the presence of the Bench Officer of CLB on 21^st December 2010 that they will come back for submission of bids as directed by the Bench. Thereafter when the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed Company Application No.11 of 2011 seeking direction from the Bench to fix the date of submission of the sealed bids, Counsel for the Appellants requested further time for submission of the same which was granted by the Order dated 27^th January 2011. CLB further recorded that after having obtained extension of time, the Application now made by the Appellants to recall the Order dated 6^th December 2010 is nothing but a tactic to delay the process. It was further recorded that any delay in the process will be prejudicial to the interest of the Company and its shareholders and keeping in view the fact that the interest of the Company is paramount, any attempts to delay the process cannot be entertained . The CLB held that its Orders dated 6^th December 2010 and 27^th January 2011 were final and binding on the parties.

¶25

5 Coapp-l-27-11

¶26

Pursuant to this Order dated 10^th February 2011, the Appellants filed an Appeal u/s 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 impugning the said Order being Appeal No.7 of 2011. The said Appeal was dismissed by an Order dated 25^th February 2011 on the ground that the same was an interlocutory order and the Court was not impressed by the arguments advanced by the Learned Advocate for the Appellants. However, it was clarified that in case the final order in the Appeal is adverse to the Appellants, then while impugning it, it is open for the Appellants to raise appropriate pleas with regards to the directions issued by the Tribunal. However, the Appellants have, in the present Appeal, not made a whisper about the said Company Appeal No.7 of 2011 or the Order dated 25^th February 2011 dismissing the same.

¶27

Thereafter, the parties submitted their bids to CLB in sealed covers. The sealed bids were opened on 7^th March 2011 at 10.30 a.m. in the presence of both the parties. After opening the bids it was found that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had quoted Rs.15,000/- per share totalling Rs.3,75,00,000/- for 2,500 shares held by the Appellants. The Appellants had quoted Rs.30,000/- per share totalling Rs.7,50,00,000/- for 2,500 shares held by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Since the price quoted by the Appellants was higher, CLB by its Order dated 11^th March 2011 declared the Appellants as successful bidders and directed them to pay the amount of Rs. 7,50,00,000/- on or before 6^th May 2011 to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were directed to hand over original Share Transfer Deeds duly executed by them along with original Share Certificates, resignation letters resigning from the

¶28

6 Coapp-l-27-11

¶29

Board of Directors along with Form 32 duly signed and Company records, if any, with them, to the Appellants simultaneously on receipt of the said amount of Rs.7,50,00,000/- in the presence of the bench Officers of the CLB. By the said Order, CLB further recorded that in case the Appellants failed to pay the said amount of Rs. 7,50,00,000/- to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by 6^th May 2011, the Appellants will forgo the right to purchase the shares of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the bid of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall have to be accepted by the Appellants. In such an event, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall pay the bid amount of Rs.3,75,00,000/- to the Appellants on or before 12^th May 2011 and the Appellants shall in turn hand over executed Share Transfer Deeds, Original Share Certificates, Resignation Letters, Form 32 and records of the Company, if any, with them, to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the presence of the Bench Officer of CLB.

¶30

The Appellants admittedly waited until the last day i.e. 6^th May 2011 when they were to pay the said amount of Rs.7,50,00,000/- to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the presence of the Bench Officer of the CLB and on that date sought further time to deposit the amount of Rs.7,50,00,000/- by an Application which reads as follows:-

¶31

"In the above Petition the Honourable Board was pleased to order Bidding to take over the Company.

¶32

In accordance with the said order on 7^th March 2011 the bids were opened & we were declared as successful bidders as against the Petitioners bid offer vide order dated 11^th March 2011.

¶33

7 Coapp-l-27-11

¶34

Your Honour had granted time to satisfy the bid till today 6^th May 2011.

¶35

To achieve the above target we have strived to raise funds in our personal capacity. Our loan demand was approved in the month of April but because of a number of holidays in the month of April & necessary RBI Regulations, funds could not be disbursed in time.

¶36

We kindly request that in the interest of equity & kindness by way of mercy, we may be given two weeks extension as last & final chance to draw the demand in the name of the Petitioners. Therefore we kindly request to accept our request & grant us the time till 20^th May 2011.”

¶37

CLB, by its Order dated 9^th May 2011, extended the time to make the payment of Rs.7,50,00,000/- upto 5 p.m. on 11^th May 2011. By the said Order, it was once again clarified by CLB that if the Appellants failed to deposit the said amount of Rs.7,50,00,000/- by 5 p.m. on 11^th May 2011, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall pay the bid amount on 12^th May 2011 by 5 p.m. to the Appellants and the Appellants in turn would hand over executed Share Transfer Deeds, Original Share Certificates, Resignation Letters, and statutory records of the Company, if any, with them, to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the presence of the Bench Officer of CLB.

¶38

8 Coapp-l-27-11

¶39

The Appellants failed to pay the said amount of Rs. 7,50,00,000/- to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 within the extended time. On 17^th May 2011, the Appellants moved Company Application No.25 of 2011 with a prayer that the proceedings in Company Petition No.11 of 2010 be adjourned for a period of four weeks in order to enable the Appellants to file an Appeal under section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 against the Order dated 11^th March 2011. By this time, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had submitted their demand draft of Rs.3,75,00,000/- with the Bench Officer of CLB. However, the Appellants failed and neglected to execute the transfer deeds and to submit the original share certificates and resignation letters. In view thereof, CLB, by its Order dated 7^th June 2011, after setting out the aforestated facts, in exercise of the power conferred u/s 402 of the Companies Act, 1956, directed the Appellants to accept the bid amount of Rs.3,75,00,000/- of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and execute the share transfer deeds in their favour and hand over the original share certificates and letters of resignation from the post of Directorship and thereby disposed of the Petition. The Learned Member has inter alia recorded in his Order dated 7^th June 2011 as under :-

¶40

“.......As stated supra the petitioners have submitted the demand drafts before the Bench Officer. Since this Bench is of the firm opinion that both the parties can’t see eye to eye and there is a deadlock situation in the affairs of the Company, thereby the Company is suffering and the workers fate is in turmoil due to serious fight between the parties and this Bench had

¶41

9 Coapp-l-27-11

¶42

rightly taken the decision inviting the sealed bids. To put an end to the acts complained off and keeping in view the paramount interest of the Company and in exercise of power conferred under Sec.402 of the Companies Act, 1956 I hereby direct the respondents to accept the bid amount of the petitioners and execute share transfer deeds in their favour and hand over all the original share certificates and resignation letters resigning from the post of directorship and statutory registers and records if any with them within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioners are hereby directed to take back the original demand drafts and other documents from the Bench Officer of this Bench forthwith. With the above directions the Company Petition is disposed off. No orders as to cost.”

¶43

14 . The Appellants therefore filed the instant Company Appeal (L) No. 27 of 2011 impugning the Order dated 7^th June 2011 passed by CLB. The Learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants has submitted before this Court that the Order passed by CLB dated 7^th June 2011 deserves to be set aside, since the Order passed by the CLB dated 7^th March 2011 is contrary to the CLB Order dated 6^th December 2010. It is submitted that by the Order dated 6^th December 2010, CLB directed that only the highest bidder would have a chance to purchase the shares of the other party and no provision was made

¶44

10 Coapp-l-27-11

¶45

by the said Order that in case the highest bidder fails to pay the amount offered by him then the next highest bid would have to be accepted. It is further submitted that CLB erred in not considering that the NAV as per audited financial statements dated 31^st March 2010 was Rs.22,130.25 per equity share, and therefore, admittedly, the offer given by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was less than even the market value as per the audited financial statements. It is submitted that the Learned Member of CLB erred in holding that none of the parties had objected to the bid process. It is submitted that CLB ought not to have directed the Appellants to accept the bid amounts of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and to execute share transfer deeds in their favour and further to hand over all original share certificates, resignation letters, etc. The Learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants also submitted (as also set out in Paragraph No.4 of the Application No. 75 of 2011) that they did not immediately challenge the Order dated 11^th March 2011 as they were confident that they would arrange for the funds as per the offer made by them. However, on account of various reasons they failed to arrange for the amount offered by them. In such a case, it is submitted, CLB ought to have invited fresh bids or evolved some other procedure which would do justice to all concerned.

¶46

The Learned Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that the Appellants have left no stone unturned to delay the proceedings before the CLB. It is submitted that the submissions made by the Appellants are baseless and untenable and cannot be taken cognizance of, since the Appellants participated in the bid, gave an offer which was accepted by CLB, then sought extension of

¶47

11 Coapp-l-27-11

¶48

time which was granted by CLB, once again failed to bring the amount as offered by them and only thereafter have sought to challenge the Order by which the bid of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is allowed. It is also submitted that the instant Appeal raises no question of law arising out of the impugned Order and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.

¶49

After hearing the Learned Advocates for the parties on 24^th February 2012, more particularly the submissions of the Appellants that they ought to be given an opportunity to make a fresh bid in the matter, this Court asked the Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 whether the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were agreeable to have a fresh round of bidding in Court, to which he responded in the Affirmative. The parties were therefore asked to bid in Court. The Learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants informed the Court that his clients require to discuss the matter and would therefore bid in the afternoon session. The mater was therefore kept back upto 3 p.m., at which time the Learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants informed the Court that his clients require two days time to give a fresh bid in the matter. The matter was therefore adjourned to 27^th February 2012 – First on Board. When the matter was called on 27^th February 2012, the Learned Advocate for the Appellants requested the Court to keep back the matter since the Appellants were trying to settle the matter with the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The matter was therefore kept back, after which the Learned Advocate for the Appellants informed the Court that the matter was settled. In view thereof, the following Order was passed on 27^th February 2012 :-

¶50

12 Coapp-l-27-11

¶51

“The Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 as well as Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are present in Court.

¶52

2. The learned Advocate for the Appellants informs the Court that they have settled their dispute with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who have agreed to increase their offer from Rs.3.75 crores to Rs.4.00 crores. However, they will be tendering their consent terms in the matter on 29^th February 2012. In view thereof, S.O. to 29^th February 2012.”

¶53

On 29^th February 2012, as the parties were not ready with their consent terms, the matter was adjourned to 2^nd March 2012. On 2^nd March 2012, the Learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants informed the Court that since the Appellants are unwell they are unable to tender consent terms and the consent terms will be tendered on 5^th March 2012. The matter was therefore adjourned to 5^th March 2012, on which date the Learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants informed the Court that his clients are not ready to sign the consent terms as per the Agreement reached between the parties and recorded in the Order passed by this Court on 27^th February 2012 since they are of the view that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 should settle their dispute relating to some other company/ firm which is admittedly not a party to the above proceedings. The Learned Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that the settlement accepted by the Appellants is already been recorded by this Court by its Order dated 27^th February 2012 and the matter was adjourned only for the parties to tender consent terms.

¶54

13 Coapp-l-27-11

¶55

The Appellants therefore cannot be allowed to back out of the settlement which was not a “without prejudice” settlement and the above Appeal deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. The Learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants once again repeated his submissions which are set out in Paragraph No. 14 hereinabove and submitted that the impugned Order dated 7^th June 2011 deserves to be set aside and the Appeal allowed.

¶56

Although the Appeal can be dismissed on the ground that the Appellants, as recorded in the Order passed by this Court on 27^th February 2012, accepted the offer of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and thereafter when the matter was adjourned only for filing consent terms, declared that they were not ready to sign and settle the consent terms, I am not doing so. I have therefore perused all the Orders passed by CLB including the impugned Order dated 7^th June 2011. I have also considered the submissions advanced by the Learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

¶57

Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 provides that an Appeal under the said Section may be filed by any person aggrieved by any decision or order of CLB on any question of law arising out of such order. Section 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 sets out the powers of CLB on an Application under section 397 or 398. Sub clause (b) of Section 402 enables CLB to provide for the purchase of the shares or interests of any members of the Company by other members thereof or by the Company. It cannot be disputed that in case of a Company where the entire shareholding of the Company is held by only two groups of shareholders holding 50% shares each

¶58

14 Coapp-l-27-11

¶59

and having equal number of Directors on the Board, a direction to one group to buy out the shareholding of the other instead of preventing the Company from functioning caused by a deadlock amongst the two groups is within the abovementioned powers. In such a scenario, after obtaining the valuation of the shares of such a Company, the groups are called upon to bid and the group whose bid is lower is directed to sell its shares to the highest bidder. In case the highest bidder is unable to pay the amount offered, it is obvious that the other group will be allowed to buy the shares of the group which has committed default in paying the price offered.

¶60

As can be seen in the present case, CLB had, by its Order dated 23^rd March 2010, appointed M/s. Shankar & Kapani, Chartered Accountants to submit their report on the fair value of shares of the Respondent No.1 Company. The Valuers have, by their report dated 31^st May 2010, after adopting the NAV and PECV Methods, explained that the fair value of the equity shares of a Company is normally determined on the basis of the average of the value determined by the abovementioned two methods. Thus according to them, the value per equity share of the Respondent No.1 Company, on the basis of the valuation determined by the NAV and PECV Methods, is Rs.12,369.70. The submission advanced on behalf of the Appellants that CLB ought to have considered only the NAV is incorrect and therefore rejected.

¶61

The Learned Member of CLB has in his Order dated 6^th December 2010 itself pointed out that the entire shareholding of the Respondent No.1 Company is held by two groups namely the

¶62

15 Coapp-l-27-11

¶63

Appellants and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who cannot see eye to eye and it is therefore difficult for them to work together in the Company. It is also recorded that neither the Appellants nor Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are willing to exit the Company. It was therefore observed by CLB that in such an acrimonious situation, the interest of the Company, which is paramount, should not suffer and to avoid an unforeseen situation one party should exit the Company. CLB therefore correctly directed both the groups to first deposit all the records of the Company in their respective possessions with the Bench Officer; thereafter allowed the parties to take inspection of the said documents; and thereafter give sealed quotations of the value at which they are willing to purchase the shares of the other group. CLB, by the said Order dated 6^th December 2010 has also very clearly recorded that

¶64

“ the highest bidder shall pay the value of shares to the other group and purchase the shares and the seller shall exit the Company after receiving the payment. The transfer of shares and tendering resignations to the Board by the outgoing shareholders shall be done simultaneously .”

¶65

The Appellants have sought to argue that by the said Order, CLB has only provided for purchase of shares by the highest bidder and has not provided as to what happens if the highest bidder fails to pay the price offered by him to the other group. It is submitted that CLB has in its subsequent Order dated 11th March 2011 mentioned that if the

¶66

16 Coapp-l-27-11

¶67

highest bidder fails to pay the price as offered to the other group, the other group would be entitled to buy the shares of the said highest bidder (the defaulting group) at the price offered by the other group. It is submitted that the order of CLB dated 11^th March 2011 is therefore contrary to its order dated 6^th December 2010. This argument advanced on behalf of the Appellants is untenable and baseless. The Order dated 6^th December 2010 required no express clarification on the issue as to what would happen if the highest bidder would default in making payment to the other group. It would always imply that in such an event, the other group would be entitled to buy the shares of the highest bidder (the defaulting group) at the price offered by the said other group.

¶68

In the present case, pursuant to the Order dated 6^th December 2010, the Appellants took inspection of all the records which were deposited with the Bench Officer of CLB and also, on 27^th January 2011, obtained further extension of time from CLB for submission of its offer upto 26^th February 2011. Thereafter, instead of submitting its bid, the Appellants filed Company Application No.20 of 2011 seeking recall of the Order dated 6^th December 2010. The Learned Member of CLB, by his Order dated 10^th February 2011, after setting out the aforestated facts, correctly rejected the said Application. An Appeal filed therefrom being Company Appeal No.7 of 2011 was dismissed by this Court by its Order dated 25^th February 2011. The Appellants as well as Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 therefore submitted their bids to CLB. The Appellants gave an offer to purchase the shares of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 at Rs.30,000/- per share, whereas the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 offered to pay Rs.15,000/- per share for

¶69

17 Coapp-l-27-11

¶70

purchase of the Appellants shares in the Respondent No.1 Company. CLB by its Order dated 11^th March 2011, accepted the offer of the Appellant and granted time to the Appellants to make the payment to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on or before 6^th May 2011. CLB also directed Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to hand over the transfer deeds duly executed by them along with original share certificates and letters of resignation from the Board of Directors to the Appellants upon receipt of the said payment. CLB further provided that in case the Appellants defaulted in making the payment on or before 6^th May 2011, the Appellants would forgo their right to purchase the shares of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the bid of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 will have to be accepted by the Appellants. In such an event, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would make payment on or before 13^th May 2011 and in turn the Appellants would execute all the documents such as transfer deeds, resignation letters and hand over all the original share certificates including the records of the Company, if any, with them to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶71

The Appellants failed to pay the amount as offered and instead sought extension of time by filing an Application before CLB (reproduced in Paragraph 11 hereinabove), for which time was granted upto 11^th May 2011. The Appellants again failed to make the said payment by the extended period as offered.

¶72

The Appellants then have filed a Company Application before CLB seeking four weeks time to challenge before this Court, the Order dated 11^th March 2011 passed by CLB. Interestingly in Paragraph No. 4 of the said Application No. 75 of 2011, which has

¶73

18 Coapp-l-27-11

¶74

been set out in Paragraph No.14 hereinabove, the Appellants have stated that they did not challenge the said Order dated 11^th March 2011, as they were confident of arranging funds as per the offer made by them, which for various reasons they ultimately failed to arrange, thereby clearly admitting that the Appellants had accepted the Order dated 11^th March 2011 and are now challenging the same for the sole reason of being unable to fulfil their offer accepted by CLB. This certainly cannot be allowed. The CLB is therefore also correct in observing that non of the parties had objected to the bid process. In any event, under the facts and circumstances of the present case the CLB has adopted one of the best possible course of action to resolve the dispute/dead lock directing the two group to give their best possible offers and the group giving the highest offer to buy out the shares of the other group.

¶75

In view thereof the Learned Member of CLB, in exercise of powers conferred under section 402 of the Companies Act, 1956, by his Order dated 7^th June 2011 directed the Appellants to accept the bid amount of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and execute the share transfer deeds in their favour and hand over all the original share certificates, letters of resignation from the post of Directorship and statutory registers and records, if any, with them, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order. The Company Petition was accordingly disposed of.

¶76

In the above circumstances, none of the Orders passed by CLB including the impugned Order can be faulted in any manner whatsoever. CLB has, keeping the facts and circumstances of the case

¶77

19 Coapp-l-27-11

¶78

in mind, correctly exercised its powers conferred u/s 402 of the Companies Act, 1956. By the present Appeal, no question of law is raised as required u/s 10F of the Companies Act, 1956. Further, the contentions raised on behalf of the Appellants are untenable and therefore rejected.

¶79

The Company Appeal is therefore dismissed. The Company Application (Lodging) No. 26 of 2011 accordingly stand disposed of.

¶80

[ S. J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]

Shri Rajiv Narhari Sardesai and Two Ors. v. Dynamech Cranes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Rajiv Narhari Sardesai and Two Ors. v. Dynamech Cranes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Skm Alloys Private Limited Vs ----------------------

Skm Metal Processors Private Limited Vs ---------------------------

Hdo Technologies Limited Vs

A/S Dan-Bunkering Ltd. Vs M.V. Icdas 11

Dinesh D. Jain. Vs Vishnukant Dhanraj Maheshwari @ Vishnukant Dhanraj Rathi

,R. Arvind M. Makavana Vs Jitesh Pranlal Sheth