Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.61 seconds)
Col. (Retd.) Dalip Singh Sachar vs Maa Karni Coal Carriers P. Ltd., Maj. ... on 28 December, 2004 cites

Parmanand Choudhary And Ors. vs Smt. Shukla Devi Mishra And Ors. on 29 January, 1987

12. It was also pointed out even though the affidavit with the original petition was signed on 5.1.97, the petition was filed only on 24.2.97, when the matter in a civil suit filed by the petitioner on the same allegations, was pending before the High Court. Para 28 to 56 of the petition are verbatim of the plaint in the suit before the High Court. Accordingly, the petitioner is indulging in forum shopping which should not be encouraged. The respondents also pointed out that in the petition there is no prayer that the petitioner should be put back on the Board. With regard to the claim in the petition that company should be treated to be in the nature of partnership as claimed by the petitioner, the question of considering of partnership principle does not arise in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hanuman Prasad Bagri quoted above. Dealing with the merits of the case the respondent submitted that the petitioner ceased to be a director by operation of law in terms of Section 283(1)(g). Inspite of notices given to him under certificates of posting at pages 73 to 88 of the reply the petitioner did not attend Board Meeting held on 27.6.96, 4.7.96 and 29.8.96. The production of copies of the certificates of posting is conclusive evidence of posting of notices as held in Parmanand Chaudhary v. Smt. Shukla Devi (67 Comp. Cases 45-MP). The question of seeking permission of DGR in terms of Article 40(b) does not arise as the petitioner was not removed as a director but by operation of law, he ceased to be a director. Form No. 32 was filed with the Registrar of Companies on 8.10.96 indicating that the petitioner ceased to be a director on 23.9.96. The respondent further submitted that the period of three months 25 specified in that section refers to calendar months and as the petitioner did not attend the meetings held in June, July and August, 1996, he ceased to be a director. He referred to the clarification issued by the Deptt. of Company Affairs in terms of Section 285 of the Act, according to which the term 'month" as used in that section refers to a calendar month. He also pointed out that the main reason as to why the petitioner avoided attending more meetings inspite of notices was that the second respondent was demanding repayments of loans given to the petitioner. The respondent company had written to DGR wherein the company explained the legal position in this regard and the DGR was satisfied with the explanation. Therefore, the respondent submitted, the petitioner cannot have any grievance when he ceased to be a director due to his own conduct.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next