On hearing the learned counsel, I passed the following order ex-parte : "Application mentioned and it is prayed that the board meeting convened on be directed to be deferred for the reasons stated in the petition. Certain essential facts which are on record and deserve to be noted in the light of the pleadings in this application are set out hereafter. Shri Chaudhary appearing for the applicant submitted that the inspection carried out by the petitioner in pursuant to the order of this Board revealed that respondent 3 and 4 who were appointed as additional directors had ceased to be directors effective from 30.9.2006 as they were not confirmed in the AGM on that day and the 2nd respondent who was appointed as additional director on 19.3.2007 can also not hold office as he had been appointed by the board consisting of 3rd and 4th respondents who had continued to be the directors of the company, these respondents had convened a Board meeting on and therefore they should be restrained to hold the said meeting. In the application filed on , these facts had been suppressed. When these facts were brought to my notice, I informed the counsel for the petitioner that when the matter is pending before this Board, any information/particulars collected during inspection ordered to be given by this Board, should have been used only in the aid of these proceedings and should not have been used for taking unilateral action by the petitioner herself. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? The application is premised on allegations that the third of the counsels arrayed as party, is allowing the other two counsels to appear in his place and that the counsels have intentionally omitted to give information in respect of commission of offence which they are duty bound to disclose and have also given false information in respect of commission of offences. When these facts were brought to my notice on 3.1.2008, I passed the following order : "Application mentioned. The application will be heard on 8.1.2008 at 1.00 P. When the matter was heard on this day, it transpired that not only the petitioner had co-opted a director on , two more additional directors had been appointed on and the board thus constituted had also issued 6.58 lakh shares at Rs.100/- per share. Vikram Bakshi 157, Golf Links 157, Golf Links New Delhi-110003. In the prayers to the application, the applicant has sought for upholding that the respondent 2, 3 and 4 are no longer additional directors; for accepting the resignation of the additional directors appointed on and ; for authorising the petitioner to appoint additional directors; to maintain the percentage shareholding by offering shares to the 2nd respondent and his group in the same manner as was done on ; till then for freezing the voting rights on the shares issued on and to authorise the board constituted by the petitioner to decide on the location of the registered office. 32 filed by the company on 8.12.2007 regarding cessation of office by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents which fact the petitioner came to know through inspection granted by this Board.
Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? I also informed the learned counsel that since the order dated was obtained by suppressing material facts and the unilateral actions of the petitioner amounted to overreaching this Board, I had no option but to dismiss the petition. No.2/2009 page 17 of 43 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that instead of dismissing the petition leave be granted to him to withdraw the petition. 102, Maharani Plaza Ashram Chowk New Delhi-110024 Versus 1.
Wadia Parkash S/o Ved Parkash C-220, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024. between the respondent company with financial lenders and/or investors in the company and/or its project in the Kasauli shall also bear the signatures of the petitioner or that of her nominee (or, in the case of email her prior concurrence with its contents).
2-4 that from here onwards, all correspondence and written communication of any kind, whether by letter, email, facsimile, etc.
The chase sequence in ‘The French Connection’ was filmed without obtaining permits from the city, featured many close calls with drivers and pedestrians who weren’t part of the film, and was shot by director William Friedkin himself because the other camera operators were married with children.
No.2/2009 page 19 of 43 understood the grounds on which I had indicated on 8.1.2008 that the petition was deserved to be dismissed. Without mentioning anything about restoration of the status quo ante in regard to the shareholding and directorship, Shri Chaudhary, Senior counsel for the applicant only desired that the petitioner, being the only and single validly appointed director be permitted to appoint additional directors to carry on the affairs of the company.