9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Rishav Banerjee, Mr. Rajarshi Banerjee, Advocates for R-1 Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Ms. Srishti Juneja, Advocates for R- 4 & 7 Ms. Gauri Rishi, Advocate R- 5 & 6. ORDET Heard Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Advocate assisted by Mr. Supriyo Goel, Advocate appears on behalf of the Appellant. 2. Heard, Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 3, Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Sr. Advocate appears on behalf of Respondent No. 2, Mr. Rishav Banerjee, Advocate appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Advocate appears on Behalf of Respondent Nos. 4 & 7 and Ms. Gauri Rishi, Advocate appears on behalf of Respondent Nos. 5 & 6. 3. The Appellant has filed this Appeal being aggrieved and dissati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed I.A. No. 3084 of 2022 with a following prayer: "a. Allow the present application and stay of the operation and effect of the resolution passed by the Respondent No. 2 during the EGM held on 20.07.2022 whereby the Respondent No. 4 to 7 were removed; and b. Stay the removal of the four independent directors being Sri Ratan Kumar Sarawagi, Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, Sri Chandra Shekhar Samal, Susil Kumar pal and stay the appointment of two new directors being Sudipta Mukherjee and Umakant Bijapure and status of the board of Directors of the Respondent No. 1 as existing on 19th July, 2022 be restored; and c. Appoint an Administrator (being a retired High Court or Supreme Court Judge) to administer the affairs of the Respondent No. 1 Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Banerjee appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 sought for an appointment of an Administrator to protect the interests of the Company. 10. Learned Counsel for the independent Directors Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari submitted that Section 169 of the Companies Act was not complied with. It is seen from the record that there is no Reply Affidavit filed by these Respondents. 11. We are conscious of the fact that EGM was convened by majority shareholders of the Company and the requisition of the meeting per se cannot be said to be at fault. We have also taken into consideration the reliefs sought for in I.A. No. 3084 of 2022 whereunder, the Applicant/Appellant sought for stay of the operation of the effect of the resolution passed during the EG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
