9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 etc. However, none appears for the Respondents so far. Since the Applicant/Petitioner is stated to be holding 38% of the shares of the Company apart from position of Directorship, she is entitled to participate in the affairs of the Company and she is also entitled to receive perks on par with other Directors. Since the Tribunal is not in a position to hear the Respondents till now, we cannot pass further exparte interim orders, at present as prayed for. However, the Respondent No. 3, in the meanwhile, cannot force the Applicant to subscribe to Rights issue as offered to her, vide letter dated 07th July, 2020 until further orders. Application is hereby disposed of by directing the Respondents not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Applicant/Petitioner and the Respondent Nos. 1 2 are founders/contributors and also consequentially Directors of the 3rd Respondent Company, and it was established by the Petitioner and first two Respondents in the year 2017, for the purposes of doing business of marketing, buying, selling and dealing in, pharmaceutical products and services. Since the uncalled for incident of 14.09.2019, when the police entered the Company premises and the meeting had to end abruptly and all other employees were sent away for the day, the Company premises has remained closed and the keys to the Company premises are being kept by the 1st Respondent Mr. Subash Chandra Khandewal, the Company transactions and activities have come to a standstill, employ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers the Petitioner a stake on payment of ₹ 5,00,000/- the Petitioners refusal of the offer would reduce the Petitioners status as a single member majority shareholder, the unilateral acts of the 1st and 2nd Respondents affecting the constitution of the 3rd Respondent would cause grave loss and injury to the Petitioner which cannot be compensated. 3. Heard Mr. Altaf Hasan, learned Counsel for Applicant/Petitioner, through Video Conference, and none appeared for Respondents, though the Counsel served notice on them about the case. We have carefully perused the pleadings of the Applicant and extant provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rules made thereunder. 4. Mr. Altaf Hasan, learned Counsel for Applicant/Petitioner has vehe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
