TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1672
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent company was incorporated on 17.10.2012. The petitioner alleges that he was instrumental in transiting the business of Thermotech Synergy Pvt. Ltd. in which his father held 44% equity to the respondent company. Upon its formation, the entire work force of Thermotech Synergy was also transferred to the respondent company. The petitioner who had experience in the Steel Sector (having dealt with the working of Thermotech Synergy Pvt. Ltd.) specialised in providing service of furnaces to major steel plants. He was responsible for procuring business for the respondent company. It is submitted that sometime in 2016 respondents 2 & 3 highjacked the business of the Respondent Company. Steps for removal of the petitioner were taken in an illeg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to substantiate that the Board meeting had been requisitioned for this purpose prior to convening the EGM. Secondly it is submitted that in the notice calling upon him to make a representation, there was no specific allegation justifying his removal. 4. The respondents on appearance filed their reply. Ld. Counsel appearing for them has repudiated the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that there is no requirement to hold a Board meeting for the purpose of requisitioning an EGM in cases where it is requisitioned at the instance of a shareholder. It is further submitted that the petitioner was well aware what were the specific allegations against him which he was required to address. He was present in the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egation of siphoning off the funds. It is further submitted that the petitioner has guilty of forging signatures of the other Directors on the cheques for withdrawing amounts from the bank to which he was one of the joint signatories, which is primarily the subject matter of criminal investigation. 7. In view of the submission made, this Bench does not find any irregularity in convening an EGM for removal of a Director. The same can be requisitioned by a shareholder and a Board meeting is not a prerequisite. The removal of a Director is best left to the respondent company and its shareholders. Directorial complaints should not be entertained by courts and therefore interference of the tribunal in such like matters is totally unwarranted. ....