AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
20.01.2025: These five appeals are against an impugned order dated 06.09.2024 passed on separate/similar applications moved by Respondent No. 2 herein, in five Company petitions filed by Appellant. The impugned order is as under:-
“13.Further, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has fairly submitted that the Respondent has not taken any decision or action which would cause any prejudice to the interest of the company. The admitted position is that the Respondent has been removed from the Director and his name has been shown as removed as the Director in the records of the RoC.
14.We are therefore of the view that the cause of action in the present application does not survive any longer and therefore no relief as prayed for by the Applicant in this application be granted at this stage. It is reiterated however, that any decision in the meeting held on 11.02.2022 or any resolution passed shall be the outcome of the present petition including the consequential entry in the records of the RoC.”
It is argued the Appellant has never admitted he has been removed as a Director of the Company as an earlier order dated 11.2.2024 very well notes any action taken in the meeting and/or any resolution passed will be subject to the outcome of the company petition.
Admittedly, in the order dated 11.2.2022 and similar order(s) passed in all other company petitions, the issue of legality of removal of the Appellant from the Board of Directors is left open and is subject to the outcome of those company petition (s).
Thus, as we understand the position is though the respondents claim the appellant has been removed in the AGM dated 03.03.2022 and is no longer a Director of the Company, hence cannot claim or represent himself as a Director of the Company, as he usually claims in various communications; but the Appellant still claims to be a Director of the Company as he says the legality of his removal is still under challenge and is made subject to the outcome of company petitions.
Thus, we find, as of now, the Appellant has been removed as a Director of the Company in its AGM dated 03.03.2022. Hence, though this position is to be tested by the Ld. NCLT but till such time the Appellant cannot exercise any right as a director of the company, hence must refrain from representing himself as a director till company petitions are heard and finally decided.
The Appellant is also aggrieved of the fact that para 13 of the impugned order dated 06.09.2024 notes of an alleged admitted position qua his removal. Now this question is still sub-judice, hence we dispose of all these appeals by requesting the ld. NCLT to dispose of the Company Petitions as expeditiously and as possible and without being influenced by any such observation as is made in para 13 of the impugned order.
Appeals stand dispose of. Pending application, including that of condonation, also are disposed of.