before the company law board - Company Law Board Mumbai Bench

27vide their reply dated 13.9.2006 clarified that the R1 Company intheir Board Meeting held on 15 thCP 15/2008P ExportsDecember, 2005 resolved andauthorized the R2 to enter into an agreement and to execute the saidagreement and in exercise of the said power the R2 had entered andexecuted the agreement of lease on behalf of R1 Company andhanded over the peaceful possession to them. They vehementlydenied that the property was occupied illegally. From the reply of therespondents and the reply of the R7 to the letters addressed by thepetitioner it is apparent that the R1 entered into agreement with R7 asan independent entity and not in individual capacity. Therefore,addressing the letters by the petitioner No.1 as shareholder is notcorrect. The R1 Company is only competent to take decision with R7in respect of lease according to the terms and conditions of the leaseagreement. Be that as it may, the respondents stated that leaseagreement has been terminated with R7. In view of the statement Iam of the view that it is a closed controversy with R7. The petitionersin their prayer prayed this Bench to declare all the Board Resolutionsand shareholders’ resolutions passed by the Respondents 2 to 6 fromSept., 2003 are illegal, null and void. It is seen that except the prayerno documents/copies of the Resolutions have been produced beforethis Bench showing that the Respondents have taken decisions whichprejudiced the petitioners. In absence of any evidence, the prayer ofthe petitioners seeking declaration is vague and the same is rejected.