CL: Where petitioner-director was present in board meeting in which resolution for allotment of additional shares was passed and had signed annual returns as director, no relief would be granted to petitioner for reduction of her shareholding
■■■
[2014] 49 taxmann.com 93 (CLB - Kolkata)
COMPANY LAW BOARD, KOLKATA BENCH
Mrs. Ishita Ghosh
v.
JDS Technologies (P.) Ltd.
A. Bandopadhyay, MEMBER
C. P. No. 803 of 2011
JUNE 6, 2014
Section 241, read with section 242, of the Companies Act, 2013/Section 397, read with section 398, of the Companies Act, 1956 - Oppression and mismanagement - Petitioner was shareholder and director of respondent company - She filed petition under section 397 alleging that she was holding 38 per cent shareholding of company which was illegally brought down to 32.05 per cent by respondents - She alleged various acts of mismanagement and diversion and siphoning off funds of company - Whether since petitioner was present in all board meetings along with respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and no objections had been recorded against resolutions taken in board meetings wherein additional shares were allotted to either petitioner or respondent nos. 2,3 and 4 and authorized capital was also increased and petitioner had signed annual returns as director, no interference was called for in respect of shareholdings of petitioner as reflected in such annual returns - Held, yes [Paras 12,13,14 & 18]
■■■
[2014] 49 taxmann.com 93 (CLB - Kolkata)
COMPANY LAW BOARD, KOLKATA BENCH
Mrs. Ishita Ghosh
v.
JDS Technologies (P.) Ltd.
A. Bandopadhyay, MEMBER
C. P. No. 803 of 2011
JUNE 6, 2014
Section 241, read with section 242, of the Companies Act, 2013/Section 397, read with section 398, of the Companies Act, 1956 - Oppression and mismanagement - Petitioner was shareholder and director of respondent company - She filed petition under section 397 alleging that she was holding 38 per cent shareholding of company which was illegally brought down to 32.05 per cent by respondents - She alleged various acts of mismanagement and diversion and siphoning off funds of company - Whether since petitioner was present in all board meetings along with respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and no objections had been recorded against resolutions taken in board meetings wherein additional shares were allotted to either petitioner or respondent nos. 2,3 and 4 and authorized capital was also increased and petitioner had signed annual returns as director, no interference was called for in respect of shareholdings of petitioner as reflected in such annual returns - Held, yes [Paras 12,13,14 & 18]
No comments:
Post a Comment