SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
ANU MALHOTRA
Sonia Khosla – Appellant
Versus
Vikram Bakshi – Respondent


Table of Content
1. preliminary inquiry into agm minutes' authenticity. (Para 1 , 2)
2. inquiry report referenced for court's decision. (Para 4 , 6)
3. party arguments over supreme court stay relevance. (Para 5 , 7)
4. supreme court's directive to transfer proceedings. (Para 12 , 13 , 15 , 17)
5. proceedings of applications set for other judges. (Para 19)

ORDER

Anu Malhotra, J. The petitioner, now represented through her Legal Representative, vide this petition has sought that the Court proceeds under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, against the prospective accused without notice to them.

2. Vide order dated 15.2.2010 it was observed vide para 8 thereof to the effect:

    "8. In view of the fact that the respondents Mr. Vinod Surha and Mr. Wadia Prakash have claimed before the CLB to have been appointed as Directors in the AGM which they had held on 30/09/06 showing the petitioner Sonia Khosla also to be present in that meeting, being the shareholder as well as the Director of the Company, while her passport shows that she had left India on 16/09/06 and come back on 03/10/06, this aspect definitely needs to be enquired into. However, before any final decision is taken by this Court for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top