COMPANY APPEAL(DB) No.10 OF 2009 --------- Appeal against the judgment dated 27-2-2009 passed in Company Petition no. 2 of 2007. --------- HARENDRA PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE CHANDRADEO SINGH, CHANDRA MAHAL, JAGAT NARAYN LAL ROAD, KADAMKUAN, PATNA-3………………………………………………. Appellant Versus 1. RUPAK LIMITED, A REGISTERED COMPANY SITUATED AT BAKARGANJ, P.S. KADAMKUAN, IN THE TOWN AND DISTRICT- PATNA 2. SHATRUGHAN SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM KRISHNA PRASAD SINGH, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF RUPAK LTD. BAKARGANJ, P.S. KADAMKUAN, PATNA-4, PERMANANET ADDRESS- CHAINPURA VILLAGE, P.O. AND P..S. MURLIGANJ, DISTRICT- PURNEA 3. PANCHAM NARAIN SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM KRISHNA PRASAD SINGH, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF RUPAK LTD., BAKARGANJ, P.S. KADAMKUAN, PATNA-4, PERMANENT ADDRESS- CHAINPURA VILLAGE, P.O. AND P.S. MURLIGANJ, DISTRICT- PURNEA. 4. MANOJ SINGH SON OF BANSIDHAR SINGH, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF RUPAK LIMITED, BAKARGANJ, KADAMKUAN, PATNA- RESIDENT OF RUPAK CINEMA COMPOUND, P.S. KADAMKUAN, PATNA-4. 5. RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE CHANDRADEO SINGH, FORMER MANAGING DIRECTOR OF RUPAK LTD. BAKARGANJ PATNA-4, RESIDENT OF “ARUNODAYA” CHANDRA MAHAL COMPOUND, JAGAT NARAYAN LAL ROAD, P.S. KADAMKUAN, PATNA-3 6. HARSH KUMAR SINGH, SON OF RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH, FORMER DIRECTOR OF RUPAK LTD. BAKARGANJ, PATNA-4, RESIDENT OF ARUNDAYA CHANDRA MAHAL COMPOUND, JAGAT NARAYAN LAL ROAD, KADAMKUAN, PATNA-3. 7. GAUTAM KUMAR SINGH, SON OF RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH, FORMER DIRECTOR OF RUPAK LTD., BAKARGANJ, PATNA-4, RESIDENT OF “ARUNODAYA” , CHANDRA MAHAL COMPOUND, JAGAT NARAYAN LAL ROAD, KADAMKUAN, PATNA-3. 8. RAJEEV SINGH SON OF RAM MOHAN SINGH, FORMER DIRECTOR OF RUPAK LTD. BAKARGANJ, PATNA-4, RESIDENT OF RUPAK CINEMA COMPOUND, P.S. KADAMKUAN. PATNA-4. 9. SHEKHAR SINGH SON OF BALESHWAR SINGH, FORMER DIRECTOR OF RUPAK LTD. BAKARGANJ, PATNA-4, RESIDENT OF RUPAK CINEMA COMPOUND, P.S. KADAMKUAN, PATNA-4. 10. LAXMAN LAL DAS SON OF NILAMBAR LAL DAS, FORMER DIRECTOR OF RUPAK LTD. BAKARGANJ, PATNA-4, RESIDENT OF DARIYAPUR GOLA, PATNA. 11. ARUNA SINGH, WIFE OF RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF “ARUNODAYA” CHANDRA MAHAL COMPOUND, JAGAT NARAYAN LAL ROAD, KADAMKUAN, PATNA-3 2 12. ARVIND SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM CHANDRA PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF CHAINPURA VILLAGE, P.O.& P.S. MURLIGANJ, DISTRICT- PURNEA……………………………… RESPONDENTS ----------- For The Appellant :Mr. Abhay Kumar Shambhu, Advocate For The Respondent :Mr. Jashbir Singh Arora, Advocate P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ------------- Shiva Kirti Singh & B.P.Verma, JJ Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 4. 2.. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27th February, 2009 passed by a single Judge of this Court in Company Petition No. 2 of 2007 whereby the Hon’ble Company Judge dismissed the company petition filed by the appellant after giving a finding that no ground was made out for winding up the company as prayed for by the petitioner. 3. The relevant facts and maintainability of the Company petition have been fully noticed by the Hon’ble Company Judge and thereafter he has come to a considered opinion that keeping in mind the position of the company as a whole and also seeing that the interest of the share-holders do not suffer in the fight for power, it will not be proper to order for winding up of the company because the controversy raised by the petitioner appeared 3 to be baseless, frivolous, violative of the relevant provisions of law and against the interest of the company. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to create a ground by raising a serious protest against the terms of compromise in Eviction Suit no. 28/95 on the ground that as per compromise, land measuring 6 kathas and 5 dhurs was spared by the plaintiff of that suit in favour of some purchasers which included a brother of this appellant who also had a share in the company. 5. It is clear that such a grievance was noticed by the learned Company Judge and in paragraph-11 he came to a conclusion that such a grievance showed that the petitioner before Company Judge and his two supporters had been raising their own claim for their personal benefit which was detrimental to the interest of the company. It was also noticed that one of the supporters of the petitioner, his brother Birendra Kumar Singh had even filed a title suit bearing no. 8 of 2005 and had sought a relief against the interest of the company . 6. From the submission noticed above and the relevant facts, even at the minimum it can be safely inferred that the grievance of the appellant-petitioner is in respect of a personal loss or deemed personal loss and not a loss to the company. There is no dispute that over the entire 25 kathas of the concerned land the company had no valid 4 defence against eviction after the period of expiry of the lease created through a registered deed of the year 1947. What ever benefit the company got by way of tenancy assured over a portion of the land measuring 6 kathas 5 dhurs and some other benefits over the part of built-up area over the remaining land cannot be said to be a loss to the company. Thus, on consideration of submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant in support of the appeal, we are satisfied that the appeal has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. Patna High Court, Patna NAFR Naresh Dated the 8th July, 2010 ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Birendra Prasad Verma,J)