9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requisite documents filed an application dated June 19, 2004, for allotment of the said code to the petitioner. This was naturally done with the consent of M/s. Mangali Ceramics Limited. 5. The petitioner did not receive any response and sent a reminder dated August 5, 2003, followed by reminders dated August 25, 2003, and Septem- ber 10, 2003. It may be mentioned that in the letter dated August 25, 2003, the petitioner had mentioned that they have come to know that the application of the petitioner was not processed on some misapprehension of a wrongful claim of DEPB. The letter categorically states that the petitioner had not availed of DEPB facility. 6. Since the petitioner did not receive any response, the present writ petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. It is under the aforesaid rule that the petitioner has been denied transfer of the code. 10. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, it has been stated that the allegation against M/s. Mangali Impex Limited relates to the period of January, 1999. Shri Dharam Pal Goel was not even a director of the said company since he became director only on December 31, 1999, and ceased to be the director in July, 2003. It is further stated that even when Shri Goel was director in M/s. Mangali Impex Limited, he did not hold any share in the said company and he was made director to fill quorum of the company. It has been categorically stated that it is for the first time that the petitioner-company has come to know about the aforesaid action si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent; and ( ii )should have controlling interest. 16. The mere fact of being a director does not suffice to bring the rule into play. 17. It is apparent from the pleadings that Shri Goel was not even a shareholder of M/s. Mangali Impex Limited. In case the respondents had any knowledge to the contrary, the respondents should have issued an appropriate notice to the petitioner for placing on record the relevant material which could have clarified the position. This has not been done. In fact, it appears that the order was passed only in the file as no order was communicated to the petitioner nor is any order on record before this Court. Even the original records have not been produced. 18. It is also relevant to note that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
