PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA
Rajiv Lochan soni – Appellant
Versus
Rakesh Soni – Respondent
This order will govern disposal of M.Com.A. No. 47/2014 and M.Com.A. No. 48/2014 since it is jointly submitted by counsel for both the parties that these appeals arise out of same order of Company Law Board (CLB) and they involve the same issue.
2. These appeals under Section 10-F of the Companies Act 1956 are directed against the order dated 1st September 2014 passed by Company Law Board Mumbai Bench Mumbai allowing the respondent’s application to take action against the appellants under Section 195 of IPC read with Section 340 of Cr.P.C. by filing a complaint to the Magistrate of First Class for offence under Sections 191, 192, 193, 195, 199 and 200 of IPC.
3. Short facts are that respondent No. 1 has filed the company petition as against M/s Neo Finance Pvt. Ltd. and appellants and other respondents herein under Sections 397, 398, 402 & 403 of Companies Act. Appellant Sabnam Soni (respondent no. 2 in company petition before CLB and appellant No. 1 in M.Com.A. No. 48/14) had filed the reply dated 11th March 2014 on her own behalf and on behalf of appellant Mrs. Sanam Soni, Mr. Sajan Soni and Mr. Rajiv Soni (respondents no. 3 to 5 in company petition before CLB and appellant
Amarsang Nathaji as himself and as karta and manager Vs. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel and others
Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam and Anr.
Chandrapal Singh and Ors. v. Maharaj Singh and Anr.
Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vs. Meenakshi and another
Jagdish Vs. Ashok Kumar Gureja
K. Karunakaran v. T.V. Eachara Warrier and Anr.
K. Karunakaran Vs. T.V. Eachara Warrier and another
K.T.M.S. Mohd. and Anr. v. Union of India
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.