TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 795
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....018 filed in CP No.116/NCLT/AHM/2013 on 26th April, 2019. 2. Mr Girish Jetly, Respondent No.1 herein (Petitioner No.1 in CP) is one of the promoter/director and shareholder of the appellant company holding 10687 equity shares of Rs. 100/- each constituting 48% total issued capital. Mr. Vivek Jatley, Respondent No.2 (Petitioner No.2 in CP) filed Company Petition No.116/2013 before erstwhile Company Law Board under Section 397, 398 and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 alleging siphoning of funds by Appellant No2 (Respondent No.2 in CP), illegal allotment of shares and illegal appointment of directors on the Board and illegal removal of Mr. Vivek Jetly from the Board of Directors. The original petition sought relief to allow MR. Vivek Jetly t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is short ground, without going into details of other controversy involved in the present Company Petition, by directing to the respondent to restore back the position of petitioner in the directorship of the company with all attended benefits including the remuneration, which was being paid to them on 31.10.2013 and further not to make any change in their remuneration or other attending benefits or terms and condition of their directorship until further order. We further made clear that our aforesaid direction/order is subject to the final outcome of the main Company Petition and we have not conclusively decided the eligibility of salary/remuneration to a non-executive non-functional director. The issue of the illegal/unauthorized removal o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It be set aside. 8. On the other hand Learned counsel for the Respondents supports the impugned order and submitted that the Respondent NO.1 is the founder director of the company. Respondent No.2 is his sone who has been illegally removed from the Board of Directors because they have filed the petition for oppression and mismanagement against the appellants. NCLT has rightly held that the Respondents are entitled for remuneration as directors. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we have gone through the records. 10. The appellants for first time raised the objection in this appeal that Company Law Board while deciding the Interim Application No.334/2013 vide order dated 27.5.2014 rejected the prayer for remuneration ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the next date of hearing. 8. The remaining prayers made in the application have already been considered earlier and were not found in favour of the Petitioners. Therefore, they are rejected." 13. It is true that if we read relief (iv) "Directors' remuneration be paid to petitioners until outcome of the petition" with this order "the remaining prayers made in the application have already been considered earlier and were found in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, they are rejected." Then it seems that the Company Law Board has earlier rejected the prayer for directors' remuneration to be paid by the Company. However, the appellants have not placed on record any such order to show that earlier such prayer was considered and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hout service of proper and valid notice upon the Petitioner atleast 7 days in advance. 7. A plain reading of the above stated direction, goes to show that the Board Resolution, pertaining to the removal of the petitioner from the Directorship cannot be given effect without informing to and prior permission of the Court, i.e. The Company Law Board. In such a peculiar circumstance of the present case, it was incumbent upon the respondents to maintain status quo with regard to the status of the directorship of the present petitioner along with attended benefits to them. However, it is alleged that despite the above stated direction, the respondents have stopped making payment of remuneration of directorship to the petitioners, who cla....