Sharfuddin v. The Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 1st floor, Kendriya Sadan, Koti
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 226
- Companies Act, 2013
Judgment
Cause title
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.SURYA SATISH Counsel for the Respondent: MR.KANTHI.NARAHARI The Court at the admission stage made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in refusing to allow the petitioner to inspect the records relating to M/s.Sree Raghavendra Rubber Industries Private Limited, Company No.7352 of 1987-88 and also in refusing to issue the certified copies of the said records, is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner claims to be the Managing Director of M/s.Sree Raghavendra Rubber Industries Private Limited, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. He states that in view of certain disputes arose with the other Directors of the Company, he filed O.S.No.1017 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge (East and North), Ranga Reddy District, seeking injunction against the said persons who are interfering with the peaceful functioning of the company. The suit is admittedly pending. While so, since the defendants have proclaimed that they had become Directors and Managing Directors respectively, the petitioner wanted to verify the correctness of the records and for the said purpose, he requested the respondent – Registrar of Companies herein to allow him to inspect the file pertaining to M/s.Sree Raghavendra Rubber Industries Private Limited and also to issue certified copies of Form No.8, Form No.13 and Form No.32 that have been filed during the years 1996 to
Operative part
2001. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of his repeated requests, the respondent failed to furnish the said certified copies and he was not even permitted to inspect the records. Hence, this writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner a n d Sri.K.Narahari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The learned counsel appearing for both the parties have agreed that under Section 610 of the Companies Act, 1956, the petitioner is entitled to inspect the records and he is also entitled for the certified copies of the documents, as sought by him. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to allow the petitioner to inspect the records relating to M/s.Sree Raghavendra Rubber Industries Private Limited, Company No.7352 of 1987-88 and also to issue the certified copies as required by him within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ 23.09.2004 Note: Furnish CC in two days (b/o) VGB To 1 The Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 1st floor, Kendriya Sadan, Koti Hyderabad 2 2CD copies
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 226; Companies Act, 2013.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 23 Sep 2004. The bench was G ROHINI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.