there is nothing to indicate that at any stage the petitioners have protested about their exclusion from the management. Shri Nag pointed out that ... filed a proper consent letter from respondent No. 7 to make an application under Section 399(3) on behalf, and for the benefit, of respondent
transfer and transmission while disposing of the application nor did the petitioners raise such objection in their application. They, therefore, adequately complied with the directions ... orders of the Company Law Board or of the High Court.
Amendment application :
7. After the disposal of the appeal by the Rajasthan High Court
respondent on 31st March, 2001 (Annexure A-16) expressing their strong protest on holding the Board Meeting without notice to the petitioner directors and also ... petitioner directors on 2.4.2001. The petitioners sent a letter of protest against the circular resolution by a letter dated 4th April, 2001 (Annexure
board meeting, the nominee directors of the 2nd respondent in spite of protest by the managing director voted in favour of full payment ... respondent would take some decisions regarding arbitration, the petitioners filed an application, Company Application 48 of 2002 seeking for certain reliefs. On that day, this
include them as promoters. Having accepted the scheme, the petitioners cannot now protest. The petitioners having known about the scheme and having kept quite, have ... decided by BIFR and as a matter of fact their application before BIFR to include them as promoters had been dismissed by BIFR
share capital after the petition was filed in spite of the protest by the petitioner and that payment of salary as working director has been ... Respondent No. 2 in his reply to the petition as well as application has denied all these allegations. According to him, the petitioner, with
extended the time in favour of the petitioner for submitting his application till 20.06.2006. In furtherness of the request letter dated 20.06.2006 of the petitioner ... There is no material to suggest that the petitioner has raised any protest against the issue of preference shares at the annual general meeting held
articles of association of CSEA. Inspite of the said protest, CSEA repeatedly by letters of diverse dates called upon the petitioner to deposit with ... meeting held on 21-10-1997, has rejected the petitioner's application for transfer of the said share No. 127. The reasons for such
face value of the bonds, the fund accepted the amount under protest and sought for interest for the delayed payment inasmuch as the 13% bonds ... interest at the coupon rates for the delayed period. Disposing of this application, the Supreme Court observed that it was for the parties to approach
consideration for the additional shares had to be remitted along with the application. The petitioners also got additional shares in proportion to what they ... petitioners along with the applications, the encashed the cheques without protest, which would indicate that they had acquiesced to the allotments made. Their inaction
