9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 1441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discovered to be a fabricated document. In addition she has also filed 3 other applications supporting the averments in CA No. 93 of 2001. 2. According to the applicant, one of the main grievances of the petitioner in the petition was that she did not receive the notice for the Board meeting allegedly held on 10-2-2000 in which various decisions oppressive to the petitioner were taken. In the Board Meeting held pursuant to the directions of this Bench on 3-4-2000, the respondents produced before the petitioner a copy of the receipt for the registered post allegedly sent by the company on 24-1-2000 for the meeting convened on 10-2-2000. In view of this, in para 10 of the order dated 12-1-2001, the Bench had observed that in view of the ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... void and if done so, the final directions given by this Bench in its order dated 12-1-2001 would require modification. Since the Bench had passed the impugned order on the basis of the fabricated document, it has all the powers to review its order as held by the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh AIR 2000 SC 1165 wherein the Supreme Court has observed No court can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or mis-representation of such a dimension as would reflect the very basis of the claim . Accordingly, she prayed for recalling the order dated 12-1-2001 and passing a fresh order taking into consideration that the petitioner did not receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shareholders for valuable consideration has also invested huge amount of money in the company for repayment of various loans taken by the company before the acquisition of shares and as such any review of the order already passed by the Bench would be detrimental to the interest of his clients. Further, if any fault has been committed as alleged by the petitioner in regard to the registered letter, the 9th respondent cannot be held responsible inasmuch as at that point of time, his clients were not in the management of the company. Therefore, he submitted that taking into consideration that the CLB have no powers to review its own orders, the application should be dismissed. 6. We have considered the arguments of the counsel. In regard t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me substance in the allegation and had directed that she should be offered proportionate shares. In regard to the allegation of having been sidelined in the management, this Board had directed that she should continue as a director as long as her shareholding continued to be 14.7 per cent shares and in respect of appointment of additional directors we had held that in terms of article 89, the incoming shareholders had the power to appoint additional directors. The only reference to the receipt is in para 10 of that order that in view of the said receipt the petitioner cannot complain of non-receipt of the notice for the meeting on 10-2-2000. Thus, it is apparent that none of these findings on the main allegations of the petitioner is based ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
