2010 (4) TMI 603

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Rs. 30.20 lakhs pursuant to the decision taken by the board of directors of MRL taken in Board meeting held on 18-12-2007, has filed this appeal against the order dated 31-1-2008 passed by the Company Law Board (CLB) in Company Petition No. 114 of 2007 - Sonia Khosla v. M/s. Montreaux Resorts (P.) Ltd. (filed by Ms. Sonia Khosla, another Director of MRL) while disposing of CP No. 01/08 filed by someone on behalf of MRL, whereby the CLB set at naught the decisions taken by the board of directors in the meetings held on 11th and 18-12-2007 under the Chairmanship of Ms. Sonia Khosla allotting shares to different persons and inducting the appellant herein in the Board as a Director. The grievance of the appellant is that the order dated 31-1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... MRL but he was also made a Director. During the pendency of the Company petition, the Bakshi Group proposed to hold a Board meeting on 24-12-2007. An application came to be moved before CLB on behalf of Khosla Group for restraining Bakshi Group from holding that meeting. CLB passed an order on 24-12-2007 restraining the Bakshi Group from holding that meeting. Thereafter Bakshi Group moved the CLB by filing a petition (being CA 01/08) alleging that the said order had been obtained by Khosla Group by misrepresentation of facts, etc. That application was taken up by the CLB on 3-1-2008 when the CLB passed an order restraining both the Groups from holding any Board meeting. CA No. 01/08 came to be finally disposed of vide impugned order dated ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er the question of limitation appropriately. Accordingly, the present appeal came to be filed. Along with the appeal, the appellant also moved an application by way of abundant caution for condoning the delay in filing the appeal by invoking section 14 of the Limitation Act. 6. It was submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant at the time of the preliminary hearing that the impugned order is ex facie illegal having been passed without affording any hearing to the appellant which was required to be given to him before removing him as a Director of MRL and cancelling his entire shareholding which he had acquired by paying lakhs of rupees. It was also contended that although the limitation period for filing of appeal under se....