The court dismissed an appeal against an interlocutory order holding that a letter for postponing a board meeting constituted leave of absence under Section 283(1)(g) of the Companies Act, finding no perversity or illegality in the Member decision.
Appeal dismissed; Company Application No. 48 of 2012 disposed of; No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
920-coapp-41.12.sxw
1
ssm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2012
IN
CLB MISC. APPLICATION NO. 213 OF 2012 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 33 OF 2011
WITH
COMPANY APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2012 IN COMPANY APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2012 IN CLB MISC. APPLICATION NO. 213 OF 2012 IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 33 OF 2011
SKG Consultants & Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ......Appellants/ Applicants. (Orig. Respondents)
Vs.
Mr. Sanjay Suryaprakash Mehta ......Respondent. (Orig. Petitioner)
Mr. Sunit Moholkar i/by Ms. Vandana for the Appellants/Applicants. Mr. B.S. Mahajani for the Respondent.
CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE :- 20 OCTOBER 2012.
P.C.:-
Heard finally.
The Appellants have preferred this Appeal against the order
dated 28 February 2012, whereby the Member, Company Law Board,
2 920-coapp-41.12.sxw
ssm
considering the material, as well as, the documents placed on record come to a conclusion that the letter of the original Petitioner for postponement of the Board Meeting dated 31 March 2011 to 2 April 2011, need to be treated as leave of absence, even otherwise considering Section 283 (1)(g) of the Companies Act, the requirement is that the Director, must give reasons and/or must explain why he was absent from 3 consecutive meetings and/or from all meetings.
2 In the present case, the issue was discussed about the Board meeting dated 31 March 2012. We are not concerned, at this stage, with the validity of the board meeting in question. I am inclined to accept the decision, so given by the learned Member, Company Law Board, for the simple reason that when the Application and/or letter is forwarded for postponement of the meeting, that itself is sufficient to protect the Board of Director, as done in the present case. There is no perversity and/or illegality, even otherwise, the Appeal against such interlocutory order, just cannot be entertained on this issue. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, all the points are kept open.
Company Application No. 48 of 2012, and the same is also disposed
920-coapp-41.12.sxw
3
ssm
of. No costs.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an appeal against an interlocutory order dismissing an application for postponement of a board meeting can be entertained as a provision for leave of absence is not pertinent.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SKG Consultants & Engg. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Mr. Sanjay Suryaprakash Mehta
Anoop V. Mohta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
