SUSHILA GRACE TIGGA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the order passed by the Company Law Board (herein after referred to as the CLB ) whereby the CLB has issued directions and disposed of the company petition.

(2.) We have heard Mr.Perikal K. Arjun, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Vivek Holla, learned counsel appearing for the main contesting party-respondents No.2 and 3 i.e., the original petitioners No.1 and 2 who are appearing on caveat.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants contended that original petitioner No. 1 had resigned and thereafter a meeting was held and various decisions were taken including that of permanent directorship and affirmative vote. The allegation of misappropriation of money were net proved before the CLB since the procedure before the CLB is by way of summary procedure. He further contended that the decisions were already taken by the Board and the Articles were also amended accordingly The CLB ought not to have issued the directions which are issued in the impugned order.