Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2009 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (7) TMI 788 - HC - Companies LawCompany Law Board order challenged - Held that:- The question as to whether notice was sent to the Central Government by the Company Law is a question of fact and the same cannot be looked into at this stage in an appeal, where fact finding enquiry is not permitted. Having held that the appellants have miserably failed to establish issuance of proper notice and service of notice with regard to holding of the Board meetings, this Court does not deem it necessary now to go into the question of records of the Board meeting not being produced in the proceedings before the Company Law Board and in this appeal but sees no error in the finding recorded by the Company Law Board in this regard. As the question of allotment of shares is also done without proper notice to the company petitioner, the finding recorded by the learned Company Law Board with regard to allocation of shares also does not warrant any interference. For the purpose of allocation of shares, it is alleged that the offer was made on 30-4-2003 and in this offer it is indicated that the appellants have decided to allocate the share in its meeting held on 28-5-2005. Service of notice with regard to this meeting is also in the same manner as discussed hereinabove and, therefore, it is not established that the notice is served. That apart, it is clear that the decision with regard to allocation of shares took place on 5-7-2005. If the decision was taken on 5-7-2005, then the respondent who was arrested on 1-7-2005 should have been informed about the same. This was not done. The learned Company Law Board has dealt with this matter in detail, in Paragraphs 14 and 15 of its order, and this Court does not see any perversity or error in the aforesaid finding of the Company Law Board, warranting interference. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that in passing the impugned order the Company Law Board has not committed any error, which warrants interference now in this appeal.
|