Disposed¶2

Afjaal Ahmad v. Union of India

Uttarakhand HC6 Mar 2025WPMS/532/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sasa Metal Works Pvt. Ltd.; wrongful expulsion of directors; forged e-mail address; fraud by respondent nos.3 and 4; applications pending before respondent no.2; Annexure No.21; application dated 26.05.2024; Union of India; undertaking to decide application within two months; writ petition disposed of; WPMS No.532 of 2025; Ravindra Maithani, J.; 06.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief adjudicated; the writ petition was disposed of as nothing survived, on the basis of respondent nos.1 & 2's statement that the pending application will be decided within two months. ¶2

Afjaal Ahmad Vs Union of India — Uttarakhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
		WPMS No.532 of 2025 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mohd. Shaify, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Central Government Standing Counsel for the Union of India/respondent nos.1 & 2. The petitioners claim that they have wrongly been expelled as Directors of the respondent no.5 M/S Sasa Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. (“the company”). There are allegations that fraud were played so as to exclude the petitioners from the Directorship of the company. Other related reliefs have also been sought by the petitioners. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a fraud was played by the respondent nos.3 and 4 by forging the e-mail address of the petitioners and thereby excluded from the list of Directorship, of which, multiple applications were filed by the petitioners, but the respondent no.2 is not taking action on it. He would refer to Annexure No.21, the last application that was made on 26.05.2024. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2, under instruction, would submit that the application will be decided within a period of two months. The Court takes on record the

¶2

statement of l respondent nos. In view of learned counsel and 2, nothing stands disposed	earned 1 and 2. the sta for the survives of accor	counsel for the tement given by respondent nos.1 in this petition. It dingly.
Sanjay	(Ravin	dra Maithani, J.) 06.03.2025

Afjaal Ahmad v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afjaal Ahmad v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devki Nandan Joshi Vs Managing Director Uttarakhand Transport Corporation

Khaliq Ahmad Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rajesh Rawat Vs State of Uttarakhand

M/S B T C Industries Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner State Tax

Maksood Khan Vs State of Uttarakhand

Gaurav Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand