Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Doubling Projects in The Barium Chemicals Ltd. And Anr vs The Company Law Board And Others on 4 May, 1966Matching Fragments
(i) that there had been delay, bungling and faulty planning of this project, resulting in double expenditure. for which the 'collaborators had put the responsibility upon the Managing Director, Petitioner No. 2:
(ii) Since its flotation the company has been continuously showing losses and nearly 1/3rd of its share capital has been wiped off;
(iii)that the shares of the company which to start with were at a premium were being quoted on the Stock Exchange at half their face value; and
Apart from this we do not think that the conclusions set out in paragraph 14 are extraneous to the matters indicated in the order of May 19, 1965. What is said therein is that there are circumstances suggesting that the business of the appellants is being conducted with intent to defraud its creditors, members and others, and that. the persons concerned with the management of the affairs of the company have been guilty of fraud, misfeasance and other misconduct towards the company and its members. it has to be borne in mind that what the Board is to be satisfied about is whether the circumstances suggest any of these things and not whether they establish any of these things. Now, the first of its conclusion is to the effect that the materials show that there was delay , bungling, faulty planning of the project and that this resulted in double expenditure for which the collaborators had put the responsibility upon the Managing Director, that is, appellant No. 2. Would it be farfetched to say that these circumstances could reasonably suggest to the Board that these happenings were not just pieces of careless conduct but were deliberate acts or omissions of appellant No. 2 done with the ulterior motive of earning profit for himself ? Similarly could not the fact that the company was continuously showing losses since its flotation and that 1/ 3rd of its share :-capital had ,been wiped out could have been suggestive of fraud to the Board.
(i) there had been delay, bungling and faulty planning of this project, resulting in double expenditure, for which the collaborators had put the responsibility upon the Managing Director, Petitioner No. 2,
(ii) Since its floatation the company has been continuously showing losses and nearly 1/3rd of its share capital has been wiped off;
(iii) that the shares of the company which to start with were at a premium were being quoted on the Stock Exchange at half their fa ce value;