9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Director in other companies, and thus, was not in exclusive employment of petitioner no.1 company - Mr. Kapur’s contention that neither petitioner no.2 was getting remuneration from the companies referred to in Annexure VII nor, was he spending any time qua management of the said companies. Held that:- What would have to be ascertained by the concerned authority is as to whether the submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case. The respondents will, thus, issue a notice to the petitioners fixing a date on which they can present themselves for hearing in the matter. - W.P.(C) 7873/2014 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2015 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher Mr. P.V. Kapur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S. Kapur and Mr. Joydeep Bhambhani, Advocates For The Petitioners Mr. Akshay Makhija, CGSC with Ms. Sanjugeeta Mokt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondents is a statutory requirement under the Director s Relatives (Office or Place of Profit) Rules, 2011. 5. It is not disputed by Mr. Makhija, the learned counsel for the respondents that this order was passed without according a hearing to the petitioners herein. Mr. Makhija cannot but submit that this order entails civil consequences. 6. Mr. Kapur, the learned senior counsel for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2, were grounded in facts. The impugned order, as indicated above, was passed without hearing the petitioners, and therefore, the aforementioned aspect as well as other aspects raised in the petition were obviously not noticed by the concerned officer, who passed the impugned order. The consequences of assertions made in Annexure VII of the application are not noticed in the impugned order, leadin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
