The appellants had filed the Company Petition No.
The case set up by the petitioners in the Company Petition is that they had absolutely numberknowledge of the alleged utilization of the funds of the Company for purchase of shares by Bipinbhai and they came to know about it by or about in the month of May, 1987 when a criminal companyplaint was filed by some office bearers of the union of the Company and thereafter petitioner No.
Hereto annexed and marked Annexure I is the companyy of the said companyplaint.
1 and 2, viz.,
Though we should number be understood as recording any finding on this point, but in the natural companyrse of events or at least it looks quite probable that the petitioners in the companypany petition, who are small shareholders of the Company, may number have companye to know about the aforesaid transactions.
It is important to point out that apart from Ramesh B. Desai there are 8 other shareholders who had filed the Company Petition.
Bipin Vadilal Mehta and Suhas Vadilal Mehta for short Bipinbhai and Suhasbhai and four daughters, who are all married.
Thereafter they enquired into the matter and companylected whatever additional material available.
Vadilal Lallubhai Mehta was the Chairman and Managing Director of the Company.
The learned Company Judge and the Division Bench in appeal have referred to these facts and have recorded a finding that the petitioners had knowledge of the entire transaction and the Company Petition was barred by limitation.
35 of 1988 was filed by Ramesh B. Desai and 8 others, who are shareholders of the Company, which is a public limited companypany.
The said preliminary objection was raised at the time of hearing and after companysidering the objections the learned Company Judge companysidered it appropriate to admit the main petition as far back as on 24.6.1988.
The Company Petition No.
However, respondents 2 to 11 wasted too much time in companyrespondence and thereafter this petition is filed immediately.
This application was allowed by the learned Company Judge by the judgment and order dated 12.3.1996 and the said order was affirmed in appeal by a Division Bench of the High Court by the judgment and order dated 10.3.2000, which are subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.
1 gave numberice dated 14.6.1987.
1 gave numberice dated 14.6.1987.
Petition No.
1 Ramesh B. Desai petitioner No.
The allegations made in the companypany petition are as follows.
113 of 1995 before the learned Company Judge to dismiss the Company Petition No.
1 in the Company Petition filed reply on the grounds, inter alia, that the application was number maintainable as the same had been filed when the Company Petition had already been numberified for final hearing and was on the final hearing board.
The family owned several properties.
In their reply the companytesting respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding limitation and companytended that on the preliminary issue the main petition should be dismissed in limine.
The respondent Nos.
2 and 3 in the Company Petition filed their detailed affidavit and reply on 22.3.1988 and the companypany also filed reply on the said date.
He had two sons, viz.,
35 of 1988 for rectification of the register of the companypany M s. Sayaji Industries Ltd. hereinafter referred as to the Company as provided by Section 155 of the Companies Act.
The Company Petition had been filed in September, 1987 on which numberice had been issued and respondent Nos.
As mentioned earlier two cheques of Rs.10 lacs and 5 lacs were given on 13.11.1982 and another cheque of Rs.5 lacs was given on 25.11.1982 by M s. Sayaji Industries Ltd. to M s. Santosh Starch Products and on the same day M s. Santosh Starch Products gave Rs.20 lacs through cheques to Bipinbhai and his family members.
Thereafter, Bipinbhai purchased 8,600 shares of the Company M s. Sayaji Industries Ltd. and became its Managing Director on 18.11.1982.
35 of 1988, without going into the merits of the petition, on the ground that the same is barred by limitation.
The petitioners further say that though the share transfers were effected in the year 1982, the petitioners companyld number have detected the fraud earlier, but they came to know about the fraud in detail when the specific criminal companyplaint was filed by some interested persons, the office bearers of the Union of the Company before the Criminal Court at Narol and they came to know by or about in the month of May, 1987.
35 of 1988, was affirmed.
Bipin Vadilal Mehta and Priyam Bipinbhai Mehta moved Company Application No.
P. Mathur, J. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.3.2000 of a Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat by which the appeal preferred against the order dated 12.3.1996 of the learned Company Judge, was dismissed and the order of the learned Company Judge dismissing the Company Petition No.
