9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the Company Law Board, Chennai Bench. It is strongly opposed by learned counsel for the respondents regarding the delay and the explanation offered by the appellant regarding inordinate delay challenging the impugned order passed by the Company Law Board, we have condoned the delay and, accordingly, the Misc. Civil No. 10109 of 2009 is allowed. 2. We have heard learned counsel Ms. Geetanjali Swamy on behalf of the appellant and Sri Naganand, learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondents on merits. 3. Though the matter is listed for hearing on the interim application, by consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is heard on merits. 4. The impugned order passed by the Company Law Board is challenged urging var ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subject-matter of relief sought for before the Company Law Board on 4-4-2008, on satisfying the prima facie case granted interim relief as stated supra. The same came to be vacated without considering the legal grounds urged on behalf of the appellant. The plea urged is that no notice is served upon him since there was an interim order granted by the civil court on 18-12-2007, which order was operating against respondent Nos. 2 and 5. This important aspect of the matter should have been taken into consideration by the AGM before passing the resolution for removing the appellant from the directorship of the board, the aforesaid legal contentions are rebutted by learned senior counsel regarding the notice under section 53 of the AGM. There is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he resolution against the appellant by removing him from the directorship of the board of directors of the company for which it has got the power. 6. With reference to the abovesaid rival legal contentions urged by learned counsel and senior counsel for the parties, we have carefully examined the points that would arise for our consideration : "(a)Whether exercise of discretionary power by the Company Law Board in vacating the interim order which was operating against the respondents on April 4, 2008, in permitting the appellant to exercise his rights as director of company during the pendency of the petition before it, which was an ex parte order granted in his favour, is legal and valid ? (b)What order ?" 7. Our answer to the abovesai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Suit No. 8513 of 2007, stating that the annual general body meeting of the first respondent is fixed on 19-12-2007, indicating to pass the resolution of removing the appellant herein from the directorship of the board of directors. Apart from the said fact section 172(3) of the Companies Act clearly states : "172(3). The accidental omission to giving notice to, or the non-receipt of notice by, any member or other person to whom it should be given shall not invalidate the proceedings at the meeting." 9. In view of the factual and legal positions the contention urged on behalf of the appellant that the resolution passed in the AGM of the company removing the appellant from the board of directors of the company is invalid, prima facie can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
