13.07.2015 Views

before the company law board - Company Law Board Mumbai Bench

before the company law board - Company Law Board Mumbai Bench

before the company law board - Company Law Board Mumbai Bench

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

15(ii) Shri Anil P.Sahu (R3) 29.10.1982(iii) Shri Sudhir Awasthi (R4) 27.8.2003(appointed in <strong>the</strong> meeting held illegallyby R2 & R3 calling it a <strong>Board</strong> Meeting)(iv) Shri Naresh Mangal (R5) 27.8.2003(appointed in <strong>the</strong> meeting held illegallyby R2 & R3 calling it a <strong>Board</strong> Meeting)8. It is submitted that duly convened <strong>Board</strong> meeting of Directors ofR1 was held on 4 th August, 2003. It was noted that R2 disbursed variousloans to three companies namely M/s.Flora Infotech Private Limited,M/s.Flora Fenin Private Limited and M/s.Vishwa Extrusion Private Limitedin which <strong>the</strong> said Mr. Sanil P. Sahu (R2) and his family held direct andindirect interest. The said loans were granted without knowledge of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Board</strong>of Directors and without disclosure of interest by R2 in those companies,much less with <strong>the</strong> prior approval of <strong>the</strong> Central Government, in crassviolation of <strong>the</strong> provisions of Sec.295 and 299 of <strong>the</strong> Act. The RegionalDirector has filed prosecution proceedings against R2 under Sec .283(1)(h) of<strong>the</strong> Act. The <strong>Board</strong> of Directors authorized R6 to take appropriate action andit was also directed that Mr.Sanil P.Sahu (R2) shall repay <strong>the</strong> loan amountalong with interest to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Company</strong>. As a counter blast to <strong>the</strong> above decisionof <strong>the</strong> <strong>Board</strong> in its meeting held on 4.8.2003, R2 and 3 held a so called <strong>Board</strong>Meeting on 27.8.2003 for which no notice was given to any o<strong>the</strong>r directors<strong>before</strong> holding <strong>the</strong> said meeting. None of <strong>the</strong> Respondent Nos. 6,7,8,9,10 and11 who were <strong>the</strong> only o<strong>the</strong>r directors were informed of <strong>the</strong> said meetingCP 28/2010Union vs Gwalior

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!