Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Amrita Sinha, J
Brijsons Hotel Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of director removal contested. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments on registrar's duties in removal cases. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 3. obligations of the registrar clarified. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. outcome mandating registrar's timely decision. (Para 13 , 14) |
1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record.
2. The petitioner no.1 is a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 2013 . The petitioner nos.2 and 3 are the Directors of the petitioner no.1. 3. The petitioners allege that the Registrar of Companies is not taking steps to remove the name of the earlier Director who has since been removed by the shareholders of the Company.
4. The Registrar of Companies has intimated the Company that as the issue is subjudice, accordingly, steps cannot be taken. The petitioners are aggrieved by the same.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to Rule 11 of the Companies (The Registration Offices and of directors. Rule 11(2) has been stressed upon.
6. It has been submitted that it is the duty of the Registrar to verify the documents and if it is found that the Company has violated any of the provisions of the Act or the rules, he ought to refer the matter to the
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
