favour of the respondents 6 & 7 on the premises that late P.T. Abraham was fraudulently taking steps to sell the property without notice ... shareholders and the late P.T. Abraham was determined to sell the properties ignoring the protests of the petitioner and without any proper resolution
Shri Ashwani Khurana vs Teesta Developers P. Ltd. And Ors. on 27 June, 2007
ORDER
Vimla Yadav, Member
1. In this order I am considering ... allegedly Rs. 3 lakhs, however, when the petitioner protested, it was raised to Rs. 30,000/- p.m., this is causing oppression and is against
note (Annexure P-8) to the Board narrating instances of mismanagement of the company by Puri group. Inspite of his protest, the 1st petitioner ... want of notice and he ultimately resigned on 20.5.2002 as a protest against the removal of Shri Gurmit Singh as MD. Only the nominees
petitioner and transacted certain important businesses including the appointment of one Shri P. Srinivasan as the new President of the company with effect from ... confirmation in the meeting held on 28-6-2000, the petitioner protested that no meeting could have been held without the petitioner in as much
Dababrata, decided to issue right shares, the 2nd and 3rd petitioners protested. They also objected to the issue of shares to the directors then ... held by Samandranath but also got substantial shares allotted to Shri S.P. Mitra in 1995. If these shares are cancelled or equally distributed among
Petitioner received a letter
from Mr. P.C. Aggarwala on advice of ofShri G.P. Birla (who mediated family settlement) alongwith a fictitious statement regarding ... respondent company
July-Sep. 2004
Petitioner wrote several letters
to the respondent protesting the illegal appointment of R-3 on the board as well
show that, at any time, the nominee directors of petitioners had protested on non-recording of their stand in the minutes. Normally, a party ... referred the decisions in Electrim India and Anugraha cases [i.e., Desein (P) Ltd. v. Electrim India Ltd. (2001) 3 Comp
Incable Net (Andhra) Limited, R.V.R. ... vs Apaksh Broadband Limited And Ors. on 17
substantiate their stand. Further, as held in Sangram Sink P. Gaekwad v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad and Bagri Cereals case 105 CC 465, the petitioner should ... partnership was with Raheja group and Shah group, then, he should have protested at that time itself. Therefore, the petitioner has not come with clean
further stated that the other objection of the petitioners that their protest in the board meeting should have been indicated in the explanatory statement ... bound to call for an extraordinary general meeting when requisitioned and the protest in this regard by any of the members of the board
