9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 16-9-2006 and come back on 3-10-2006, this aspect definitely needs to be enquired into. However, before any final decision is taken by this court for exercising the powers under section 340(2) Cr. P.C. for making a complaint to the Magistrate, this court deems it fit to hold a preliminary enquiry for looking into the claim of the petitioner that she was not in India during the period from 16-9-2006 to 3-10-2006 and for that reason she could not have been present in the AGM of the company which respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein had allegedly held on 30-9-2006 and so the minutes of 30-9-2006 are fabricated. Issue remanded - CRIMINAL MISC. (CO.) NO. 3 OF 2008 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2010 - P.K. BHASIN, J. Deepak Khosla for the Petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Pradesh and after discussions, an MoU and one agreement were executed by him with the company, the petitioner herein, the petitioner s husband Mr. Deepak Khosla and her father-in-law Mr. R.P. Khosla sometime between December, 2005 and March, 2006. As per the MoU the board of directors of the company was reconstituted and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein, namely, Shri Vinod Surha and Shri Wadia Parkash became additional directors of the company as the nominees of Shri Vikram Bakshi. 3. It appears that before the project in Himachal Pradesh could really take off disputes arose between Shri Vikram Bakshi, Shri Vinod Surha and Shri Wadia Parkash (who can be described collectively as the Bakshi group ) and the petitioner and her family memb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claiming himself to be a director of the company. It was claimed in that application that Shri Vinod Surha and Shri Wadia Prakash, who were initially appointed as additional directors of the company under section 260 of the Companies Act were to remain as directors till the holding of the first AGM after their becoming additional directors which was allegedly held on 30-9-2006. But in that AGM they were not confirmed/elected as directors and so by operation of law both of them had ceased to be the directors with effect from 30-9-2006. Consequently, Shri Vikram Bakshi, who was appointed as an additional director by these two persons on 19-3-2007, after they themselves had ceased to be the additional directors of the company, could also not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Wadia Parkash were not confirmed/elected as directors of the company and, so, they had ceased to be the Directors by operation of law and that she had remained as the only director of the company. She then co-opted one Mr. Vineet Ahuja as a director of the company on 11-12-2007 and on 18-12-2007 she brought on the board her husband and one Mr. R.K. Garg also and she also issued additional shares of the company. The Company Law Board, however, while disposing of CA No. 1 of 2008 vide order dated 31-1-2008 quashed the appointments of the three additional directors appointed by Mrs. Sonia Khosla and also the additional shares allotted by her on 18-12-2007. 6. The petitioner now claims that in the CA No. 1 of 2008 filed by Bakshi group it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on by praying to this court, being the appellate court of the Company Law Board, for making a complaint to the Magistrate for the commission of offences punishable under sections 191/192/196/197/198/199/200/202/204/ 205/209/463/464/466/467/468/471/474 of IPC read with sections 120B and 176 IPC. The petitioner has also placed on record a copy of her passport showing her departure for London as also the date of her return from there. As per her passport she had left India for London on 16-9-2006 and had come back only on 3-10-2006. She has also placed on record confirmation letter from Emirates Airlines on whose flight she had flown to London. 7. The petitioner claims that before filing of the present petition before this court for invoki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing into the claim of the petitioner that she was not in India during the period from 16-9-2006 to 3-10-2006 and for that reason she could not have been present in the AGM of the company which respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein had allegedly held on 30-9-2006 and so the minutes of 30-9-2006 are fabricated. I, therefore, direct the Registrar (Vigilance) of this court to hold a preliminary enquiry into the said aspect relating to the genuineness of the minutes of the AGM held on 30-9-2006 and for that purpose he would be at liberty to take any steps including inspection of the record of this petition as well as that of the Company Law Board and the company. The report would be submitted to this court within six weeks. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
