between the parties started when the petitioner demanded proper account of the two tippers that he had given to the company. With his persistent demand ... contention of the respondents that the petitioner had vacated the office in terms of Section 283(1)(g) is wrong in as much
removed as directors in terms of Section 283(1)(g) of the Companies Act, 1956 ( the Act) and that two sons of the 2nd respondent ... directors had not attended 4 consecutive Board Meetings and as such they had ceased to be directors in terms of Section
Smt. Laxmi Devi Newar (Since Deceased) ... vs East India Investment Company Private ... on 28 June
removal is two fold. One is about contention of the company that had ceased him as director in terms of Section ... petitioner, he did not receive any notices for the alleged three consecutive board meetings which he is alleged to have not attend. It is, however
make any correction of errors crept into the minutes and the remaining two directors, namely, Shri Ravi Parthasarathy and Shri Sameer Vyas, are competent ... writing the minutes with their pages consecutively numbered, failure of which attracts penalty in terms of Sub-section (6) of Section 193 . Clause 237 envisages
Yashovardhan Saboo vs Groz-Beckert Saboo Ltd. And Ors. on 22 October, 1992
Equivalent citations
Akbarali A. Kalvert And Anr. vs Konkan Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 2 May
Delstar Commercial And Financial Ltd. ... vs Sarvottam Vinijaya Ltd. And Ors. on 30 March, 2001
Praful M. Patel vs Wonderweld Electrodes (P.) Ltd. on 18 September, 2001
Equivalent citations: [2003
Kothari Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs Lazor Detergents Private Ltd. And Ors. on 20 October, 1993
