Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2015 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1298 - HC - Companies LawExclusive employment in a company - petitioner no.2’s application to continue to hold an office or a place of profit at an increased remuneration for a period of 5 years with effect from 01.10.2013 to 30.09.2018 was rejected - Rejection is based on the fact that the petitioner no.2 was working as a Director in other companies, and thus, was not in exclusive employment of petitioner no.1 company - Mr. Kapur’s contention that neither petitioner no.2 was getting remuneration from the companies referred to in Annexure VII nor, was he spending any time qua management of the said companies. Held that:- What would have to be ascertained by the concerned authority is as to whether the submissions made hereinabove, on behalf of petitioner no.2, were grounded in facts. The impugned order, as indicated above, was passed without hearing the petitioners, and therefore, the aforementioned aspect as well as other aspects raised in the petition were obviously not noticed by the concerned officer, who passed the impugned order. The consequences of assertions made in Annexure VII of the application are not noticed in the impugned order, leading to a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. This error could have occurred, possibly, for two reasons. First, prolixity of the record. Second, on account of failure of the respondents to seek participation of the petitioners in the proceedings. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The respondents will, thus, issue a notice to the petitioners fixing a date on which they can present themselves for hearing in the matter.
|