ORDER

Per: RADHAKRISHNA SREEPADA, Member (Technical)

1. The present Appeal is filed by the Applicant under Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 seeking relief as below:

a) direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to forthwith resume and discharge his responsibilities as a director of Respondent No.1 Company, with full access to the office premises, books of accounts, and all related records; and

b) grant an order of injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, or any person claiming through them, from in any manner preventing, obstructing, or interfering with the petitioner’s attendance at the office and performance of his duties as a director, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Submissions of the Petitioner:

3. It is submitted that the invitation of Board of Directors meeting to be held on 29.07.2025 for Respondent No.1 Company was sent by Respondent No.2 to all the directors including the Petitioner through an email dated 22.07.2025 along with Agenda for the Board Meeting.

4. Agenda 3 for the Board Meeting was to take on record of Annual Decision in the form MBP-1 and Form DIR-8 for the directors.

5. And as against the remaining agenda items, the petitioner responded through 3 emails dated 23.07.2025 at 6.44 P.M., 23.07.2025 at 06.47 P.M. and 28.07.2025 at 05:29 P.M. These clearly shows the intention of Petitioner to seek relevant inputs for a meaningful meeting. No responses were provided by way of emails or through any copies of the requisite information as sought for in the emails referred to supra.

6. The Petitioner also attended the Board Meeting physically on 29.07.2025 at the registered office and the copy of attendance sheet is furnished as Annexure- C.

7. In the meeting the Petitioner after the initial welcome address, questioned as to why the information sought by him (As provided as Annexure- B) was not provided.

8. To this the Respondent No.6 (Vinod Ramaswamy) initially raised his voice in very unparilamentry way mentioning that no information could be given and asked the Petitioner to do what he is capable off to get this and to approach the court to get any information since the Petitioner had already approached the court. This was supported by Respondent No.2 (M S Harish). Both these two targeted the Petitioner in a very humiliating way by infact had honest intentions, but the Respondents were not reciprocating in the same intentions. When the remaining directors refused to give the required information, then the Petitioner mentioned that as a Director it was his right to get this information and he mentioned that if these required documents were not available in the registered office in Basavangudi, he is willing to even visit the Corporate Office in Rajajeshwari Nagar. To this the Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.6 threatened that they will make sure he will not set his foot in the Corporate Office and that they will harm the Petitioner physically if he attempts to visit the Corporate Office.

9. The Petitioner also volunteered to provide the information of Annual Disclosure in the form MBP-1- and Form DIR-8 for the directors. However, Respondents mentioned that since the Petitioner had filed the above case, they asked him to submit the same in the court. Since they refused to take this, the Petitioner could not do much about the Respondents’ behaviour and being humiliated and also threatened by that he would be harmed physically, went to the jurisdictional police station and lodged a formal complaint with Ref No.99/2025 and 29.07.2025, Annexure – D.

10. In view of the fact that the Respondents refused to provide the information and also receive the MBP-1- and Form DIR-8 information, the Petitioner decided to send this information through email out of abundant caution to be complaint with the statutory requirement to ensure his directorship is not affected because of the differences with the directors of Respondent No.1 Company. As he has planned to send the information through email, bu