before the company law board - Company Law Board Mumbai Bench

11sole proprietor of Central India Sulphonators, it was the R6 who was themain beneficiary as he was alone operating bank account No.31362. Thecheques were issued by R6 without the knowledge of R2. It is denied that R2had not disclosed his interest in the Central India Sulphonators as is evidentfrom the prospectus issued by the Company during its Second Public Issue in1994. The relevant disclosure at page No.11 of the prospectus is as under:“Central India Sulphonators is a proprietorship concern of Mr.Sanil P. Sahu,a promoter Director of the Company, for manufacturing Acid Slurry atMalanpur, which commenced production in November, 1991”. R2 has beendisclosing his interest in other companies/firms since beginning every yearand such disclosures have been made by other directors of the Company also.In fact it is Mr.Harish K. Sahu (R6) the Ex-Managing Director who did notdisclose his interest to the Central Government as its beneficial owner. Thealleged violation took place in 1994 and a long period had already expired.No amount is due from Central India Sulphonators in the books of theCompany which has also been verified by the petitioner from the books ofaccounts for the years 2002-03 to 2005-06 produced during the inspection.LOAN TO VISHWA EXTRUSION PRIVATE LIMITED:CP 28/2010Union vs GwaliorIt is deniedthat the Company had given any loan to Vishwa Extrusion Pvt.Ltd. as theCompany has entered into transaction of its finished products with thecompany. Moreover, Vishwa Extrusion was not a Private Limited Companyat the relevant time. It was a Public Limited Company and became PrivateLimited Company from 10.4.2003 and therefore the provisions of Sec.299 donot apply with respect to the captioned transactions. R2 has made full