9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , therefore, it can be said that it has become impracicable to hold general meeting of Respondent Company, then the only recourse available to the Petitioner to hold Extraordinary General Meeting (except ACM) in the company is invoking jurisdiction u/s 186 of the Companies Act, 1956. It is evident under section 186 of the Act 1956, when it is impracticable to hold General Meeting. then any member or director can take recourse under this section to call a meeting of a company other than annual general meeting with the leave of 18. Here, in this Company, no directors are continuing, there is only one shareholder, who ordinarily cannot hold meeting without approval of CLB. Hence, CLB, invoking jurisdiction under section 186 of the Companies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uential directions be given as this Hon'ble Company Law Board may think if and proper including directors in relation to the calling, holding and conducting of the meeting, the operation of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and of the Company's Articles of Association; (e) Such further order or orders as this Hon ble Board may deem fit and proper. 2. Case of the Petitioner: Respondent Company is incorporated on 28th December, 2010 as a private limited company with it s registered office at 53, Paschim Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The authorized share capital of the company is ₹ 5.00 lakhs divided into 50,000 equity shares of ₹ 10/- each out of which 10,000 equity shares have been issued. The Petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d this CP for approval of this Bench tor holding Extraordinary General Meeting u/s 186 of the Companies Act, 1956. For this CP has been filed in the interest of the company, the Petitioner prays for approval to hold General Meeting u/s 186 of the Companies Act, 1956. 4. On hearing the submissions and pleadings of the Petitioner Counsel, it appears that there are two shareholders in the Respondent Company, one is the Petitioner holding 99.99% shareholding in the company, another is Mr Jeifrey Waterous holding one share in the company, he resigned from the company as director in the year 2011 itself and since then he is not available for attending any meeting of the company. It needless to say one member cannot be situated quorum to hold g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
