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

COMPANY LAW BOARD
K.K. BALU, J.
Wipro Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Anil Kumar Poddar -Respondent
C.A. No. 720 of 2009
Decided On : 16-06-2009

Advocates Appeared:
R. Murari, S. Eshwar

ORDER

1. In this Company Application filed under section 284(4) of the Companies Act, 1956 ("the Act"), the Applicant-Company is seeking (i) to exempt the Applicant-Company from circulating, publishing or reading out at its annual general meeting proposed to be held on 27.07.2007, the notice of the respondent dated 21.02.2009, issued under section 284 and the explanatory statement dated 24.02.2009 thereto and (ii) to restrain the respondent from abusing the powers conferred under section 284 by issuing any further notice for removal of any director of the Company, for among other reasons, as reiterated by Shri R. Murari, learned Counsel, herebelow :

m The respondent who became a shareholder only on 07.11.2008, by acquiring only one share, asked for (i) copies of the minutes of the annual general meeting for the year ended 31.03.2007, (ii) list of top ten shareholders, (iii) list of directors, (iv) Register of Investment, (v) Register of Contract, (vi) latest five year annual reports, (vii) Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association, as reflected from his pre-printed letters dated 05.11.2008, 18.11.2008, 04.12.2008, 15.12.2008, 31.12.2008 and 17.02.2009, in response to which the Applicant-Company had forwarded as early as on 11.11.2008 to the respondent all the documents, as per his letter dated 05.11.2008, save copies of Register of Contract and Register of Investment and further promised to send the same in a short time, The Applicant-Company by its letter dated 25.02.2009 once again provided all the documents and information sought by the respondent, including copies of the Register of Investment and Register of Contracts, which were duly received by the respondent on 26.02.2009, in terms of Tracking Details, as obtained from the website of the Courier Company and produced before the Bench,

mThe respondent had forwarded to the Applicant-Company, some of its director and Company Secretary, a weekly newspaper dated 16.02.2008, 23.02.2008 and 31.01.2009, named "Hamara Kaam" of which the respondent is the Publisher and Printer, containing very abusive and unparlimentary language against some persons against whom some matter was reported.

m The Applicant-Company received from the respondent yet another preprinted letter dated 26.02.2009, followed by a reminder letter dated 06.03.2009, asking for annual report of all the subsidiary companies of the Applicant-Company and particulars of employees under section 217(2A) of the Act. The Applicant-Company by its letter dated 06.03.2009 requested for time to collate all information, furnish annual report and details of employees of 77 subsidiaries to the respondent, and the Company subsequently by letters dated 12.03.2009, 18.03.2009, 31.03:2009, 01.04.2009 and 16.04.2009 provided all the information that were claimed by the respondent, which are supported by proof of delivery to the respondent. In the meanwhile, the respondent sent a special notice dated 21.02.2009, under section 284 of the Act, together with an explanatory statement dated 24.02.2009, on 02.03.2009 in a single envelope through courier service, which was received by the Applicant- Company on 04.03.2009, proposing a resolution for removal of the Chairman and Managing Director of the Applicant-Company. The respondent with malafide intentions pre-dated the aforesaid documents, despite having received all the required documents from the Applicant- Company by 26.02.2009. Thereafter, the Applicant-Company advised the respondent by a letter dated 05.03,2009 that all the requirements were already met and further that they were treating the requirement of his letter dated 21.02.2009 as dropped and expressed the willingness to furnish any further information as may be required by him, in response to which, the respondent in his reply dated 06.03.2009 made it clear that the Applicant-Company is bound to comply with his notice dated 21.02.2009 on account of violation of the provisions of sections 39, 163, 301, 303 and 272A of

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top