Back
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Vinay Goel, Judicial Member
Sunija Darsan – Appellant
Versus
Shelly Chandrangadan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition and ias under s.98 seek meeting directions and fund accountability. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. disputes over incorporation, director eligibility, notice validity, and mismanagement. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 3. s.378v mandates ceo notice issuance; overrides articles. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 4. notice void; petition partly allowed, ias dismissed. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 5. directions for order communication and closure. (Para 42 , 43 , 44) |
O R D E R
1. The Company Petition No. 34 of 2021 has been filed under Section 98 of the Companies Act, 2013, by Mrs. Sunija Darsan against Mr. Shelley Chandrangadan and others, seeking the following reliefs:
a) To seek direction that the said board meeting on 30/07/2021 by Respondents 1,2, and 3 violating the Authority clause 1.1.1 under Secretarial Standards u/s 118(10); to be made void and invalidated by this Hon’ble court.
b) To provide necessary directions u/s 98 of the Companies Act, 2013, for the proper conduct of the general meeting of the company by appointing our counsel or a desired expert as the Chair
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
