Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. In the judgment of Shelat, J. It was pointed out that the chairman of the Board had filed an affidavit-in-opposition in which it was stated that the circumstances upon which the Board arrived at the opinion resulting in the impugned order were as follows:--

"(i) there had been delay, bungling and faulty planning of the 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 had been continuously showing losses and nearly 1/3rd of its share capital had been wiped off;