TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... untant appointed by the Company Law Board nor did they appear before the Board and contested the claim in spite of several opportunities being given. This conduct clearly demonstrates, who is the cause for break-down in the administration of the Company. Therefore, the Company Law Board had no option except to pass an ex parte order which is passed in accordance with law. Therefore, no case for interference is made out - If the conduct of the appellant before the Board was fair and if they had any respect to the law and to the Company Law Board and they had co-operated in conducting the proceedings, the Company Law Board could have exercised its discretion in the order - Appeal dismissed. - Co. Appeal No. 1 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 6-3-2013 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 be superceded and an administrator be appointed to assume charge of the management and affairs of the Company. (b) The administrator so appointed be directed to convene general meetings of the Company for appointment of a new Board of Directors to take charge of the affairs of the Company and the management of the Company be vested on the said Board. (c) Declare that the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have been guilty of diverse acts of oppression and mismanagement as well as mal-utilisation of the funds and assets of the respondent No. 1 company. (d) Declare that the Extra-Ordinary General Meeting dated 9th September, 2005 held by the respondents No. 2 and 3 to pass the ordinary as well as spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any manner acting as directors of the first respondent company and/or conducting any meeting of the Board of Directors of the First respondent - the Company. 4. After service of notice, the respondents entered appearance, filed their Statement of objections contesting the claim. Petitioners filed their rejoinder. In fact the Company Law Board by its order dated 09.07.2007 appointed M/s. B.P. Sachin Kumar and Co., Chartered Accountants, Bangalore to verify the investments made by the contesting parties in the company towards the project undertaken by them. The fact set out in para 22 of the impugned order shows the total non-cooperation on behalf of the respondents with the Chartered Accountant. Subsequently, even before the Company Law B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d (i) made in the petition are disallowed. (6) The petitioner is directed to take appropriate steps with the ROC, Karnataka in respect of order (2), (3) (4) above. 5. From the aforesaid order, all that has been done by the Company Law Board is, the increase in the authorized share capital of the company from Rs. 10,00,000/- to Rs. 20,00,000/- and allotment of majority shares to respondent No. 2 himself and the EGM dated 09.09.2005 is declared as void, illegal and the resolutions are not binding on the company. The change of the registered office of the company is also declared illegal. In all other aspects, the reliefs sought for by the petitioners was dis-allowed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. 6. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
