before the company law board - Company Law Board Mumbai Bench

More documents

Recommendations

Info

18different from the ones affixed on the reply. Thus, the reply of R2 to R5 isliable to be rejected on this ground alone. In fact R2 to R5 are in the habit offorging and fabricating the records. R2 had gone to the extent of forging andusing fake stamps of postal authorities and filing the forged and fabricateddocuments with ROC, Gwalior to prove illegal service of audited balancesheet of the year 2002-03 to 13497 public shareholders. The prosecution forthe alleged offences leveled against R6 to R9 is not maintainable in law. Inview of the provisions of law R6 to R9 were/are not officers responsible forthe alleged offenses. It is denied that petition is filed by relying on false orserving complaints filed by R6. Complaints filed by R6 are true and correctand duly corroborated by documentary evidence. The Inspecting Officer hasbeen rather very lenient towards R2 to R5. R2 has not realized that he wasfull time director and director of a public limited company having a greatresponsibility to operate and work honestly as per law. R2 and R3 cannotclaim their ignorance of Company Law as both of them are qualifiedChartered Accountants. It is denied that R6 had siphoned of Rs.97.64 lacs orany amount of the Company and R2 to R5 should be put to strict proofthereof.10. Heard the Learned Counsel, PCS appearing for the respectiveparties and perused pleadings, documents filed in their support. Afteranalyzing the pleadings, the following issues are felt for considerationand the same are need to be addressed.CP 28/2010Union vs Gwalior
191) Whether Board Meetings dated 4.8.2003 and 27.8.2003 arevalidly held?with law?2) The loans advanced by the Company whether in accordance3) Whether the respondents mismanaged the affairs of theCompany and thereby mis-utilized the funds of the Company?in office?4) Any contravention of Law committed by the directors while11. The Learned PCS appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 raised anobjection with regard to maintainability of the petition on the groundthat the R1 Company was referred to the BIFR and the same is pendingbefore the BIFR, therefore, it is bar to adjudicate the matter by thisBench or any other forum in view of Sec.22 of SICA 1985. In view ofthe preliminary objection raised by the respondents, it is necessary todecide the same. It is an admitted fact that the R1 Company has beenreferred to the BIFR and the BIFR declared the R1 Company a sickindustrial Company in terms of Sec.3(1)(o) of Sick Industrial Companies(Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and directed not to dispose off, lease out,encumber or alienate in any way any of its fixed assets or current assetswithout specific prior approval of BIFR under Sec.22A of the Act.Whether this Bench has any bar in adjudicating the matter filed underSec.397-398 and other provisions of the Companies Act by the Union ofIndia. In this regard the relevant provision i.e. Sec.22 of SICA 1985CP 28/2010Union vs Gwalior
Page 5 and 6: 5and M/s.Vishwa Extrusions Pvt. Ltd
Page 7 and 8: 7this regard under Sec.292(1)(e) of
Page 9 and 10: 9present petition is not maintainab
Page 11 and 12: 11sole proprietor of Central India
Page 13 and 14: 13directorship due to alleged contr
Page 15 and 16: 15(ii) Shri Anil P.Sahu (R3) 29.10.
Page 17: 17the Company for the Financial Yea
Page 21 and 22: 21clauses mentioned in Sec.22 of th
Page 23 and 24: 2313. Now I deal with Issue No.2, 3
Page 25 and 26: 25was the responsibility of the ex-
Page 27 and 28: 27the subscribers to the Memorandum
Page 29 and 30: 29International Limited by the Comp

before the company law board - Company Law Board Mumbai Bench

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?