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

D.R.DESHMUKH


ORDER

1. Arguments concluded.

2. The only question that requires consideration by me in this order iswhether Company Petition No.63(ND)/2008 has been filed by the authorisedrepresentative of the petitioners.

3. In CP No.63(ND)/2008 Boortmalt N V is the petitioner No. l andBoortmalt India (P.) Ltd. is the petitioner No.2. The petition is signed byCol. Suraj K Ahuja. With the petition Col. Suraj K Ahuja had sworn twoaffidavits, one on behalf of the petitioner No. 1, and the other on behalf ofthe petitioner No.2 stating that he is their authorised representative andcompetent to file the company petition. Earlier in the cause title it wasstated that P-l had authorised Col. Suraj K Ahuja by a power of attorney dated23rd September, 2008. As regards P-2 it was stated that Co. Suraj K Ahuja wasauthorised by a Board resolution dated 23rd September, 2008.

4. The petitioners had, with their rejoinder filed two documents, one acertified copy of the extract from the minutes of the meeting of the Board ofdirectors of P-l dated 23rd September, 2008 authorising Col. Suraj K Ahuja tofile the CP against the respondents, and the other a certified copy of theextracts from the minutes of the meeting of the

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