9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (7) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order dated 8-12-1993 in writ petition No. nil of 1993 of the High Court of Calcutta, which in turn, partially stayed the operation of an interlocutory order dated 20-10-1993 of the CLB in a petition under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') brought before it by petitioner- shareholder of the company, 'Harbans Lai Malhotra and Sons Ltd.' complaining of suppression of the minority. 3. It was urged before the Board by the petitioners that the collaboration arrangement embarked upon by the said company with Gillette was illegal and operated as oppression of the minority. The CLB by its order dated 20-10-1993 noticed the prayers made before it: "(a) respondent 1 company should not approve of any transfer of its shar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding to the Board, the respondents had not come forward to disclose. 5. This interlocutory order of the Board was assailed by the respondents in a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court. The High Court made an interlocutory order staying the observations made by the Board that there were some suppressions of material information and also stayed the operation of that part of the order of the CLB by which it said the company 'shall not proceed further in the matter of collaboration....'. 6. The respondents are not aggrieved by the Board's interlocutory direction that shares pursuant to the collaboration should not be issued except upon the approval by the shareholders in a general meeting. The CLB also directed that if a meeting was c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the objection implies that as long as the interlocutory interdiction by the Board goes in favour of the petitioners, it could not be objected to as having effect on the other proceedings and only when it goes against the petitioners, it incurs this criticism. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us appropriate to set aside the order of the Calcutta High Court as really being unnecessary having regard to real import of the order of the CLB. The directions of the Board cannot be continued (construed ?) as coming in the way of respondents' taking all such antecedent, preliminary and preparatory steps, short of issuing shares to the collaborator. So far as the approval of the shareholders for the issue of the sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
