Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. Respondent No. 2 did not attend the board meeting on December 31, 1982, and the petitioner treated the said meeting as automatically adjourned till January 1, 1983.

14. On January 1, 1983, the petitioner, it is alleged, received a telegram from respondent No. 2 recording that she had written a letter to the petitioner on December 31, 1982, for adjournment of the said board meeting scheduled to be held on that date. The adjourned meeting held on January, 7, 1983, was also not attended by respondent No. 2. The petitioner held the said meeting by himself where he appointed one P.K. Ghose as an additional director. Another meeting of the board was called on February 5, 1983, notice whereof was served on respondent No. 2. By her letter dated February 2, 1983, respondent No. 2 challenged the meetings of the board held on December 31, 1982, and January 7, 1983.

24. The show-cause notice dated November 26, 1982, which triggered the disputes between the parties, it is alleged, was issued without the knowledge, consent or approval of the petitioner or that of the board.

25. It is alleged that respondent No. 3 had been removing documents and papers received at the registered office of the company before the same were even filed. Respondent No. 3 had and retains in his possession a rubber stamp and seal of the company.

26. In the absence of respondent No. 2, the board meeting convened on December 31, 1982, it is alleged, was automatically adjourned till January 7, 1983, and was duly held in the usual course.

37. It is alleged that the petitioner used to withdraw from the account of the company Rs. 4,000 per month--though he was not entitled to do so. The petitioner has, in the course of time, thus withdrawn a substantial amount and is bound to refund the same to the company.

38. The petitioner, it is alleged, used to obtain signatures of respondent No. 2 on the cheques of the company after which the said cheques were filled up and encashed by the petitioner.

39. It is alleged that the letter dated December 31, 1982, by which respondent No. 2 requested the company to adjourn the board meeting due to be held at 2 p.m. on that date was received by the company before 1 -30 p.m. and, as such, there was no failure of respondent No. 2 to attend the said meeting. It is contended that the said meeting did not stand adjourned automatically. It is contended further that there was no quorum at the meeting of the board held on January 7, 1983. The object of the petitioner in holding the board meetings on January 7 and February 1, 1983, was to convert respondent No. 2 into a minority. It is alleged that by his wrongful acts and conduct, the petitioner made it impossible for respondent No, 2 to attend the board meetings and created a deadlock in the management of the company.