Investigation of company affairs
Navin Pandya
(Querist) 29 March 2013
This query is : Resolved
Dear Legal Experts,
Sub: Investigation of Affairs of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
As an employee-cum-small shareholder of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., I had exposed mismanagement, oppression and unfair labour practices within the Company. In 1988, on getting assigned higher & more work responsibility without promotion, I was exploited by the bosses. The company had different grades but no grade wise job specifications. The Company Management did not resolve the dispute till my dismissal in October, 1991.
After serving me bogus charge sheets, I was suspended in September, 1991. Immediately after my suspension, I approached the Department of Company Affairs, Govt of India, seeking investigation of affairs of the company & protection under the Section 635 B of the Companies Act, 1956 but the Department failed to take necessary action in the matter.
In 2007, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, I asked for the ‘Action Taken Report’ on my letter of September, 1991. The Registrar of Companies, Mumbai issued Notice to the Company under the Section 234 0f the Companies Act, 1956. The Company provided false information as a reply to the Notice.
Despite repeated efforts & follow up, the Registrar of Companies is not investigating the affairs of the Company & has closed the issue.
I have raised various issues concerning the Annual Reports of the Company but neither the Company nor the Registrar of Companies is providing the required information.
In 2010, after the conviction of Keshub Mahindra for the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, the Company got published bogus paid news report misusing the LIC’s name as an Institutional supporter in the AGM in The Economic Times in favour of Keshub Mahindra for his re-election as a Director of the Company. Subsequently, the LIC informed under the RTI Act that it was not at all involved in the report. This means that Keshub Mahindra misused his bail to influence Institutional shareholders for his re-election as a Director. How the Prime Minister’s Office appointed Keshub Mahindra as a Member of the PM’s Advisory Council on Trade & Industry even though he was charge sheeted for Bhopal Gas Tragedy?
In 2008, the Company filed bogus Petition against me in the Company Law Board for my issuing the Notice for removal of Directors but the Company got ex-parte Order even without serving a copy of the Petition to me. The Company had engaged Darius Khambata, the present Advocate general of Maharashtra. The Company Law Board has misplaced this file.
In 2010, the Company filed bogus Petition against me in the Company Law Board & wrote to the Mumbai Police for preventing me from attending the AGM-2010.The Police & the Company attempted to abduct me early in the morning from my residence on the day of the AGM-2010 even though the Company Law Board had not granted any relief to the Company against its Petition. I was forcibly prevented by the Police and the Company from attending and participating in the AGM-2010. This was reported to the Registrar of the Companies & the Police Commissioner but no action is taken against the Company till date. Later on,the Company Law Board had forced the Company to withdraw its Petition.
The Company did not handled my proposal as a Director as provided in the Companies Act and has not provided me the CD of Video Recording of the AGM-2013.
Kindly inform about the legal remedies available to me.
With best regards,
Navin Pandya
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 30 March 2013
Matter is Stale. 22 years passed.
It is too late to come before LCI.
Navin Pandya
(Querist) 30 March 2013
Dear Legal Experts,
Hon. Supreme Court did condone delays as old as 30 & 50 years. What about Writ Petition?
My dismissal was in 1991 but it is a continuous struggle.
The AGM, RoC & CLB matters are not old. They were in 2008, 2010 & 2013.
In view of the above, kindly review the matters & please advise.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 30 March 2013
It shall be better for you to contact a local lawyer with complete documents so that a detailed discussion may be made and further action may be initiated accordingly.
Navin Pandya
(Querist) 31 March 2013
Dear Legal Experts,
As the matter is of great public importance, I request for few more opinions.
I appeal the company law experts to post their opinion.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 31 March 2013
I do think the delay would be condoned in this case.
