petitioner as a director by applying the provisions of Section 283(1)(g) of the Act. No notices for the meetings which the 1st petitioner ... issuing notice for board meetings and applying the provisions of Section 283(1)(g) of the Act, is a grave act of oppression against
consecutive board meetings, and did not attract the disqualification under Section 283(1)(g) of the Act. The second respondeni played the same trick ... office of director by B. Jaganmohan Rao by virtue of Section 283(1)(g) was recorded. This has not been objected to by the petitioner
nominees were removed from the Board of the company under Section 283(1)(g) on 30.1.2003. Hence, this petition under Sections ... share issues; introduction of 48 new members and removals under Sections 283 (1)(g) , etc indulged by Respondent No. 2 during December, 2002 and January
directorship of the respondent No. 1 on 3.2.2004 by taking self cognizance of Section 283(1)(g) although no such Board Meetings were held ... wife of petitioner No. 1 vacated office by way of operation of law under Section 283(1)(g) of the Companies Act on her failure
have vacated their offices as Directors of the company. ( Section 283(1)(g) of the Act.)
9. It was further argued that the petitioners have ... petitioners vacated their office by operation of law provided in Section 283(1)(g) fails in view of non service of proper notice. Any omission
board or whether he vacated his office in terms of Section 283(1)(g) of the Act. Even though the petitioner is the largest single ... These contracts have not been entered in the register of contracts under Section 301 of the Act and by these contracts, the respondents are siphoning
thereby he ceased to be a director in terms of Section 283(1)(g) of the Act. This factor was discussed and taken on record ... been held. as contended by the petitioners. By virtue of Section 283(1)(g), a director would vacate office only if he absents himself from
also of Shri Shiv Charan Singh Jodha in terms of Section 283(1)(g) of the Act and appointment of 7th and 8th respondents ... petitioners had vacated the office of directors in terms of Section 283(1)(g) of the Act. In their place, other respondents were appointed
that the appellant No.1 vacated the office
on 24.2.1997. For that purpose, the provisions of Section 283 (1) (g)
were invoked. The CLB after
would have automatically ceased to be directors in terms of Section 283(1)(g) of the Act but the petitioners have not claimed so. This
