9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (7) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the company, viz., Ratna Cements (Yadwad) Ltd., by its secretary. Respondent No. 2 is the managing director of the company. It is also pleaded that the petitioners had been wrongfully removed from directorship. Another complaint was that the annual general meeting had not been held and that despite demand, statement of accounts for the financial year 1983-84 were not furnished. Respondents Nos. 3, 7 and 9 are the other group of shareholders who represent 50% of the shareholding in the company. The petitioners' group consists of the petitioners and respondent No. 8 who represent 50% of the shareholding in the company. It suffices to say that, on the advice of the Industrial Development Bank of India which is one of the premier financial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompanies Act. We find from the order of the learned company judge that all aspects have been gone into in accordance with the pleadings and all material received in the form of affidavits and enclosures of both parties. On a perusal of such material, he came to the conclusion that there was nothing wrong with the resolution of the board of directors passed at the meeting held on November 7, 1984, removing the petitioners from directorship which later came to be affirmed at the general meeting held on December 29, 1984. In fact, it was in evidence that the petitioners had all been served with the notice of the annual general meeting together with the enclosures. It was also in evidence that the petitioners, appellants before us, had indeed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.73 lakhs respectively which he collected but did not account for or remit to the company. According to the directions issued in the other paragraphs, each party is required to exercise his option in regard to reimbursement of the amounts contributed and until the parties exercise their options, no immovable property or machinery of the company is liable for disposal without the previous permission of the court thereby securing the interests of the public funds as well as the investment made by the petitioners-appellants. There is also a provision made for the parties to seek further guidance and directions of this court in case any difficulty arises. In that view of the matter, we do not see any good ground for interfering with the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
