TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant because of his having been removed from the Directorship of MRL and cancellation of his entire shareholding by one stroke of pen of the CLB and, therefore, that order should not be allowed to continue to operate against the interests of the appellant. Thus the contentions raised in the appeal need to be gone into and notice deserves to be issued to the respondents. Notice of this appeal, condonation of delay application (being CA No. 785/09) as well as stay application (being CA No. 784/09) is ordered to be issued returnable for 30-4-2010. Till then, the operation of the impugned order dated 31-1-2008 passed by the CLB insofar as it has cancelled the shareholding of the appellant and Directorship in MRL is stayed. - CO. A.(SB) N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case is that there were some disputes between two Groups claiming to be exclusively entitled to manage the affairs of MRL. One Group was Khosla Group and the other group was Bakshi Group . Ms. Sonia Khosla, one of the two original Directors of MRL claiming oppression and mismanagement of the affairs of MRL at the hands of Bakshi Group, which was primarily comprising of one Mr. Vikram Bakshi, Mr. Wadia Prakash and Mr. Vinod Surha, out of whom Mr. Wadia Prakash and Mr. Vinod Surha were initially inducted as Additional Directors into the board of directors and they, in turn, subsequently had inducted Mr. Vikram Bakshi also as a Director in the Company s Board. 4. The disputes between the two Groups resulted in both the Groups convening ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18-12-2007 under the Chairmanship of Ms. Sonia Khosla shall stand cancelled with immediate effect and status quo with regard to the composition of the Board and the shareholding as existed on the day of filing of the Company Petition, which was filed on 13-8-2007, was ordered to be restored. 5. The appellant, who was not a party to the Company Petition, felt aggrieved with the order dated 31-1-2008 because of it having cancelled his shareholding and Directorship in MRL without any notice to him and so he filed a petition in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the said order of CLB. In that petition (CWP No. 1703/2008), this Court had initially passed an order of status quo with regard to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reason that the CLB had passed it without hearing the appellant but also because the CLB had ceased to have jurisdiction to pass any order since before the date of that order, it had already entertained an application moved on behalf of Bakshi Group under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and that application was yet to be finally disposed of, one way or the other. However, by way of abundant caution only application for condonation of delay had been moved and benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act was being sought in the event of this Court finding the appeal to be time-barred. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order is causing undue hardship to the appellant because of his having been remov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
