SUDHIR NARAIN, LAKSHMANA RAO
PRAKASH TIMBERS PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
SUSHMA SHINGLA – Respondent
( 1 ) A preliminary objection has been raised in this appeal by the respondents first set that the Special Appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge, deciding the first appeal under S. 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956, against the order dated 15-9-1995, passed by the Company Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi, was not maintainable under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules (hereinafter referred to as rules ).
( 2 ) THE brief facts are that Prakash Timbers Private Limited, appellant No. 1 was incorporated as a company in the year 1961. It decided to bring into existence another subsidiary company and, consequently, Hridaya Narain Yogendra Prakash Properties Private Limited was incorporated as wholly owned subsidiary of Prakash Timbers Private Limited. In August 1991, Smt. Sushma Shingla and Smt. Sandhya Sharan, respondents 1 and 2 requested that a meeting of the Board of Directors be called to discuss the mismanagement in the company but no such meeting was called. In the third week of March, 1992, they received a letter from the Assistant Registrar of the Companies that it had come to their notice that they had sold their shares
Canara Bank v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.
Referred to : Brij Nandan Sinha v. Jyoti Narain
Virendra Kumar v. State of Punjab
Bharat Bank Ltd. Delhi v. Employees of Bharat Bank
Engineering Majdoor Sabha v. Hind Cycles Ltd.
Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha v. Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.