Financial Daily from THE HINDU group of publications
Friday, Feb 04, 2005
Financial Daily from THE HINDU group of publications Friday, Feb 04, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate
-
Corporate Disputes BPL case: CLB dismisses Nambiar's plea for want of jurisdiction Richa Mishra
New Delhi, Feb. 3 IN a setback of sorts to Mr T. P. G. Nambiar (the patriarch of the BPL Group) and others, the Company Law Board (CLB) on Thursday dismissed the petition filed by them against BPL Communications Ltd, Mr Rajeev Chandrashekar and others for want of jurisdiction. With this, the CLB Principal Bench has put an end to the controversy over its jurisdiction on entertaining petitions against companies having registered offices in the southern region. While dismissing the petition, Mr S. Balasubramanian, Chairman, CLB, observed that "Once the Additional Principal Bench (APB) has been constituted with specific territorial jurisdiction with all powers of the Principal Bench, petitions relating to companies having registered offices in the southern region have to be filed before and dealt by the APB, and the Principal Bench ceases to have any jurisdiction to entertain such petitions. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, however, with liberty to the petitioners (Mr Nambiar and others) to move the APB, if so advised." The CLB Principal Bench was considering the petition filed by Mr Nambiar, Electro Investment Pvt. Ltd, Namfil Finance Company Pvt. Ltd, and Nambiar International Investment Co Pvt. Ltd against BPL Communications, Epsilon Advisors Pvt. Ltd, BPL Mobile Communications, BPL Ltd and others, alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement in their affairs. Recalling the sequence of events, the CLB Principal Bench noted that it had passed an ex-parte interim order restraining Mr Chandrashekar, BPL Communications and others from alienating assets of BPL Communications, Epsilon Advisors, BPL Ltd, BPL Telecom Pvt Ltd, BPL Mobile Communications Ltd, BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd and others. It had also directed BPL Communications and others to maintain status quo with respect to their shareholding pattern. BPL Communications and others filed an application seeking dismissal of the petition filed by Mr Nambiar and others on various grounds, including on the issue of jurisdiction. Their contention was that since the registered offices of all the companies were either situated in Kerala or Karnataka, falling within the Additional Principal Bench of CLB, at Chennai, the Principal Bench had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Further, they had filed an appeal before the Karnataka High Court on CLB order. While setting aside the order of the Principal Bench, the Karnataka High Court directed the CLB to decide the jurisdictional issue first. Mr Nambiar and others challenged the Karnataka High Court order before the Supreme Court. The apex court directed the CLB to decide on the question of jurisdiction within two months.
Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page
|
Stories in this Section |
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |
Copyright © 2005, The
Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu Business Line
|