9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (6) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usation does not flow from the allegations found in the complaint itself filed by Devashola (Nilgiri) Tea Estates Co. Ltd., the complainant in the case. From the records supplied by both the parties, it emerges clearly that on July 31, 1962, Balchand was re-elected as director. The term of his directorship is for three years. By efflux of time, he must have retired as a director on July 31, 1965. Bat, at the annual general meeting of the company on July 30, 1964, a resolution was passed appointing Balchand as a managing director with effect from 27th day of June, 1962, for five years. It is true that there was no re-election of Mr. Balchand as a director with effect from July 30, 1965. On 28th May, 1968, the board of directors of the compla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vices rendered as such. Undoubtedly, his services were accepted by the company. The complaint was laid by the company against Balchand, the petitioner, for contravention of section 630 of the Companies Act. The petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings solely on the ground that the ingredients of section 630(1)( a ) or ( b ) are not satisfied on the basis of the allegations found in the complaint. Section 630 of the Companies Act reads as follows : "Penalty for wrongful withholding of property. (1) If any officer or employee of a company ( a )wrongfully obtains possession of any property of a company; or ( b )having any such property in his possession, wrongfully with holds it or knowingly applies it to purposes other than those ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were accepted by the board at the general body meeting of the company from time to time and from year to year. The learned counsel for the respondent-company drew my attention to sections 2(26), 256 and 630 of the Companies Act. Interpreting the sections, the learned counsel for the respondent-company argued that when Mr. Balchand failed to get re-elected as a director on July 31, 1965, he could not function as managing director in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, despite the two resolutions passed at the general body meeting of the company. Even assuming that Mr. Balchand could not function in law as managing director in the absence of his re-election as a director on or about July 31,1965,1 am unable to hold that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
