Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16. The respondent No. 3 has also filed a separate affidavit. He has submitted that with reference to the said meeting of Board of Directors dated 1.9.98, there was no need for other directors to show the petitioner No. 1 present in the said meeting as alleged by the petitioners because any two directors were sufficient to have a quorum of the meeting. There was no such material gained to other directors as alleged by the petitioner. Regarding the meeting of Board of Directors dated 20.11.98, the respondent N0.3 submitted that the resolution of allotment of 1500 fictitious shares were made as a result of understanding and agreement between the two directors pursuant to the said family settlement and the same had full concurrence of petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 1 had not raised any objection for a period of more than 4 years. A family settlement was arrived at between the various members of Shah family including the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 pursuant to which, shares were gifted and cross gifted and which laid to taking over of control of companies by various parties as decided in the settlement. The respondent No. 3 has further mentioned that it is denied that respondents have shown petitioner No. 1 was present in the meetings of the Board of Director of the respondent No. 1 company held on 10.3.98, 15.5.98, 1.9.98, 20,11.98 and 15.12.98 at Mumbai as well as the AGM held on 30.9,98, 30.9.99 and 30.9.2000 regarding the error of the day as Saturday, the respondent No. 3 submits that assuming without admitting the same, the could be due to human error and is curable. The petitioners are restricting themselves to the Board Meeting dated 1.9.98 and AGM dated 30.9.98 and making false allegation that no such meeting took place.