Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2009 (6) TMI 586

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e accepted by us and, therefore, this contention urged in this regard must fail. The Company Law Board having examined the pleadings, on examination of the prima facie material placed before it by respondent, it thought fit to give opportunity to the appellant to exercise his right as the director of the company need not be continued, such order cannot be found fault with by this court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and power. We do not find any question of law that would arise for our consideration. Therefore, we feel that is not a fit case for our interference in vacating the ex parte interim order passed in favour of the appellant by the Company Law Board. - COMPANY APPEAL NO. 8 OF 2009 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2009 - V. GOPA .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... various grounds, but no question of law was framed as required in law for our consideration to answer the question in favour of the appellant. The ground of attack of the impugned order is that on 19-12-2007, the annual general body meeting of the first respondent-company came to be passed excluding respondent- Nos. 2 and 5 removing the appellant herein from the board of directors of the first respondent-company. The company petition was filed by him before the Company Law Board on 31-3-2008, seeking various reliefs and the consequential relief under clause VIII Part b, reads thus : "Declare that the change in composition of the board of directors brought about at the AGM held on December 19, 2007, at the instance of the second respondent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t disputed that the address mentioned in the notice sent to him is not the registered address furnished to the company. Further, the interim order granted by the civil court is only against restraining respondent-Nos. 2 and 5 from entering the office of the first respondent-company as managing director and chairman respectively in pursuance of the resolution dated 29-10-2007. There is no interim order passed against the company in favour of the appellant regarding not to remove him from the directorship of the board by the AGM of the company and further it is also contended that the special notice served upon the appellant is received by him which fact is admitted in the company petition by producing the same as annexure R. Therefore, the c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , is factually incorrect for the reason that the special notice served upon him is produced in the company petition before the Company Law Board. Apart from the said fact it is an undisputed fact that the address to which the notice was sent by the first respondent-company notifying him that the AGM will be held on 19-12-2007, is the registered office as per the company records. The proviso to section 53(2) of the Companies Act, reads thus : "(2) Where a document is sent by post, ( a )service thereof shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting a letter containing the document, provided that where a member has intimated to the company in advance that documents should be sent to him under a certificate of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e was no impediment for the first respondent to pass the resolution against the appellant on 19-12-2007, for the reason that the interim order of temporary injunction granted by the civil court in the original suit was operating against respondents Nos. 2 and 5. The said interim order restraining respondent-Nos. 2 and 5 not to interfere with the functioning of the appellant as managing director and chairman of the first respondent-company in relation to not to remove him from the board of directors of the company. For this reason also we do not think that it is a case for our interference with the interim order wherein the earlier interim order is vacated in which an opportunity was given to the appellant to exercise his rights as a directo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates