Company Applications Nos. 240/284/CB/2010. Case: Wipro Ltd. Vs Anil Kumar Poddar. Company Law Board
Case Number | Company Applications Nos. 240/284/CB/2010 |
Judges | Lizamma Augustine, Member |
Issue | Company Law |
Citation | [2010] 159 CompCas 350 (CLB) |
Judgement Date | July 06, 2010 |
Court | Company Law Board |
Order:
Lizamma Augustine, Member, (Chennai Bench)
-
In this company application filed under Section 284(4) of the Companies Act, 1956 ("the Act"), the applicant-company is seeking, inter alia (i) exemption from circulating, publishing, in any manner or reading out at the forthcoming annual general meeting of the applicant-company which is likely to be held on July 2.2, 2010, the notice of the respondent under Section 284 received by e-mail dated May 30, 2010 and the explanation given therefor; and (ii) direction to the respondent to refrain from misusing and abusing the powers conferred under Section 284 from issuing any further notice for removal of any director of the applicant- company, Shri R. Murari, learned Counsel, for the applicant submitted that:
M/s. Karvy Computer Share P. Ltd., the transfer agent of the applicant-company had received an e-mail on August 14, 2009, addressed to the company secretary of the applicant-company requesting to provide: (i) copy of the minutes of the last annual general meeting, (ii) copy of the register of investments from April 1, 2009 to July 31, 2009, (iii) copy of the register of contracts from April 1, 2009 to July 31, 2009, and (iv) copy of the annual return filed with the Registrar of Companies. On receipt of the e-mail forwarded by the transfer agent, the applicant-company vide its e-mail dated August 21, 2009, replied to the respondent that in respect of the copy of the minutes of the annual general meeting of the applicant-company, he was asked to pay the applicant-company a sum of Rs. 17 as is required in terms of the provision of Sub-section (2) of the Section 196 of the Act and in respect of the copies of the register of investments and the register of contracts for the period April 1, 2009 to July 31, 2009, the respondent was informed that he should follow the procedure as laid down in the Act and the said procedure has been upheld by the Bench in C. A. No. 720 of 2009. In respect of the copy of the annual return, the respondent was informed by the aforementioned e-mail that the same was yet to be filed as it was due only by September 19, 2009 and that the copy of the same would be made available to him, after he complied with the provisions of the Act.
The respondent in an obviously pre-printed letter dated September 7, 2009, wrote to the applicant-company enclosing a demand draft for Rs. 17 towards fee for the copy of the minutes of the annual general meeting. Though the DP ID and Client ID mentioned in the said letter of the respondent was different from the ones in which he was holding shares on September 7, 2009, the applicant-company while pointing out the discrepancy in DP ID and Client ID, sent the copy of the annual general meeting vide its letter dated September 16, 2009 and required the respondent to comply with the provisions of the Act with respect to the copies of the register of contracts, register of investments and the copy of the annual return. However, the respondent did...
To continue reading
Request your trial