TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 2031
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heir application being CA No. 1/2008 filed on 01.01.2008 before the Company Law Board in Co. Pet. 114/2007. They have also said to have filed forged Form 32 on the judicial record on 12.09.2007. It has been pleaded that the petitioner is shown to have been present in the Board Meeting on 30.09.2006 where some of the respondents were appointed as directors. However, the matter of fact is that the petitioner on that date was abroad in UK. This is apparent from her passport, flight tickets, etc. 3. This court on 15.2.2010 had noted the fact that the respondents Shri Vinod Surha and Shri Wadia Prakash have claimed before the Company Law Board to have been appointed as the Directors of the AGM held on 30.9.2006 stating the petitioner to be pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be such which has direct bearing or affects the functioning or discharge of lawful duties of a public servant or has a direct correlation with the proceedings in a court of justice, the expression "when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in a Court" occurring in clause (b)(ii) should normally mean commission of such an offence after the document has actually been produced or given in evidence in the Court. The situation or contingency where an offence as enumerated in this clause has already been committed earlier and later on the document is produced or is given in evidence in Court, does not appear to be in tune with clauses (a)(i) and (b)(i) and consequent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s mentioned in Section 195 (a) (i) or 195(b) (ii) of the Code. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in view of the stay order, no further proceedings can be carried out in this matter till the stay is vacated or some clarificatory order is given by the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that as per the attendance recorded in the order of stay, petitioner was represented in the Supreme Court and also that it would not be appropriate to have two parallel inquiries into the allegations made in the petition; one suo moto inquiry by this Court and other by the Registrar (Vigilance). I have considered the submissions made on behalf of respective parties. This is a pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and they attended the same and whether or not Ms. Sonia Khosla was present in that meeting. Petitioner Sonia Khosla also shall produce her original passport with visa entries on the date fixed. List on 26.08.2010 at 2:15 p.m. for consideration of affidavits as well as for arguments." 6. The genesis of the present petition relates to a land in Kasauli, Dist. Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The land was owned by the petitioner/family of the petitioner. Some of the persons being part of the Petitioner Group entered into an MOU dated 21.12.2005 with Mr. Vikram Bakshi. The project was a joint venture between the Petitioner Group and Bakshi Group. There was to be some transfer of share holding in favour of Bakshi Group. Pursuant to the MOU,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it would be appropriate that the parties maintain status quo with regard to the composition of the Board and shareholdings as it existed on the date of filing of petition before the CLB i.e. 13.08.2007. 11. The third appeal was filed by Mr. R.K. Garg who claimed that he was prejudiced by the order of the CLB dated 31.01.2008 as he had been removed as a director without a hearing. This company appeal being Co. A(SB) 23/2009 came up for hearing on 13.04.2010 when this court issued notice in the appeal and the application for condonation of delay and ordered that the operation of the impugned order dated 31.01.2008 as far as it cancels the shareholdings of the appellant and his directorship shall remain stayed. 12. Against the said ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of this Court in Ram Phal and Ors. vs. B.S. Bhalla and Ors., 112(2004) DLT 193 and judgment of the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy vs. Arun Shourie, (2014) 12 SCC 344. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vikram Bakshi & Ors. vs. Sonia Khosla (dead) By LRs being SLP (Criminal) 6873/2010 dated 8.5.2014 nothing further survives in the present case. 16. This petition stands disposed of with the following directions by the Supreme Court regarding the present proceedings:- "21.....In view of the aforesaid consensus, about the course of action to be adopted in deciding the disputes between the parties, we direct the Company Law Board to decide Company ....