1995 (2) TMI 340

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f offence punishable under section 621A of the Companies Act, 1956. One Mrs. Pushpaben Sumantrai Nayak holds five equity shares of Rs. 10 each of Atul Products Ltd. jointly with her husband, Mr. Sumantrai Gopalji Nayak. On November 30,1990, Mrs. Pushpaben executed four deeds for transferring one equity share each in favour of : A. (1) Pushpaben Sumantrai Nayak herself, (2) Sumantrai Gopalji Nayak, (3) Dipak Jayantilal Shah, B. (1) Pushpaben Sumantrai Nayak, (2) Dipak Jayantilal Shah, (3) Sumantrai Gopalji Nayak, C. (1) Pushpaben Sumantrai Nayak, (2) Dipika Ramanlal Shah, (3) Sumantrai Gopalji Nayak, and D. (1) Pushpaben Sumantrai Nayak, (2) Dipika Ramanlal Shah, (3) Sumantrai Gopalji Nayak. Pushpaben Sumantrai Nayak retain....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mber 15, 1992. In the meantime, there shall be ad interim stay in terms of para 4(A) of the civil application". Paragraph 4(A) of the civil application is as under: "Pending the hearing admission and final disposal of the accompanying first appeal your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation, execution and implementation of the order dated September 18, 1992^*, passed by the Company Law Board, Western Region, Bombay." Thereafter, the following order was passed on December 28, 1992 : "S.O. to January 20, 1993. Ad interim relief as granted earlier till further orders." On January 28, 1993, the High Court, after hearing learned counsel for Atul Products Ltd. and respondent No. 2, passed the following order: "Having hea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arned magistrate was not justified in taking cognizance of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in the complaint. Therefore, the relief prayed for in the petition deserved to be granted, as the complaint suffers from a fundamental legal defect, namely, absence of complaint by legally competent authority or person. As noted earlier, the High Court has stayed the operation, execution and implementation of order dated September 18, 1992, passed by the Company Law Board, Western Region Bench, Bombay. The validity of the order passed by the Company Law Board is yet to be decided by the High Court in First Appeal No. 2272 of 1992 (page 876 infra). The operation, execution and implementation of the order dated September ....