Dinesh Malik
14 November 2009 at 11:33
IN A PVT. LTD. CO. THERE ARE TWO MEMBERS AS UNDER:
1. Mr. A
2. Ms. X (Mr. A's minor daughter through his guardianship)
As per Companies Act, the condition of two members is satisfied.
My question is:
"Whether Mr. A and Ms. X (through Mr. A) constitute a valid quorum for a general meeting of shareholders" ?
I lookforward you responce and cooperation.
My E-mail: cs.malikdinesh@gmail.com
Mobile: 09872305737
Anonymous
13 November 2009 at 23:40
well i have to know what which documents will be required to prove a continuing guarantee signed by a parties in singapore according to indian law and stamp duties applicable.
Kalyan
13 November 2009 at 18:12
We are a registered NBFC company doing Micro finance leding at rural parts of India. We are giving loan to the villagers against their jewls? Do we need to register ourself in that act
Kindly reply
Thanks
cs
13 November 2009 at 16:27
hi i want advice on following matter:
mr. a is the common director in x pvt. ltd. and y pvt. ltd
x pvt ltd took loan from bank and a and b other director of x give personal gurantee but now x wants to execute an agreement with c and f , other directors of y that they will share liability with him
please advice as which agreement is to be executed and anything important regarding this
cs
13 November 2009 at 16:18
hi i want advice on following matter:
mr. a is the common director in x pvt. ltd. and y pvt. ltd
x pvt ltd took loan from bank and a and b other director of x give personal gurantee but now x wants to execute an agreement with c and f , other directors of y that they will share liability with him
please advice as which agreement is to be executed and anything important regarding this
sonam sarin
13 November 2009 at 15:55
Dear Experts,
What is the difference between Bank Guarantee and Indemnity Bond?
In contract negotiations, sometimes this Bank guarantee V Indemnity Bond issue come up?
wherein the service receiver insist more upon Bank Guarantee?
Thanks
SONAM
R V SHASTRY
13 November 2009 at 11:43
Respected Sir/Madam,
Our's is a Pvt.Ltd.Co.registered under the Companies Act 1956.We are 4 brothers & each of us own 25% shares each after the passing away of our father.Two of my brothers are running the Co. in the capacity of directors.The last EGM was held on 31st August 2005 and since then the Co./directors have not held any AGM/EGM till date.The Annual A/c's & Annual Return's of the Co. has also not been filed for the last continuous 4years. The first directors of the Co. were my father & second brother. They appointed my fourth brother as director by a board resolution DT:2nd October 2009.Now the Articles of Association of the Co.says, “The Directors” means directors for the time being of the Company and “The Board of Directors” means “The Board of Directors” for the time being of the Company. Also The board shall have power at any time and from time to time to appoint any person as director as an addition to the board and any director so appointed shall hold office only till the next AGM and shall then be eligible for
re-election.Now as no AGM or EGM has been held since Aug.2005,does it not imply that the directors are holding office as directors, without authorization from the members vide an AGM or EGM and hence ceased to exist as directors from 1st December 2006. Myself & my 3rd brother had vide our notice DT:28th August 2009, called upon the board to convene an EOGM under Section 169 of Companies Act 1956 and induct us as directors. The board failed to convene the EOGM within the prescribed time limit and hence we as requisitionists have called for holding the EGOM on 16th November 2009, after completing all formalities as prescribed by law.
I hope kind Sir that I have given you the proper back ground to my case and request you to kindly bear with me for all the trouble that I’am giving you.
Now what I would like to know from you kind Sir is,
(1)Do the directors still have the first choice to select one amongst themselves to chair the EOGM on the 16th inspite of the fact that they were never re-elected after August 31st 2005 as no AGM or EGM was held after that.
(2)In the event that one of the directors chair the meeting I’am aware of the fact that they will vote us out because of the casting vote and block the resolution to induct us as directors and in the bargain re-elect themselves as directors and continue their merry illegal ways.
(3)I request you kind Sir to suggest me some legal remedy to address our grievances.
(4)Can we file criminal charges as one of the directors has drawn a big amount under the guise of housing loan in 2006 but no house has been purchased by him and he has invested the money elsewhere. I have the copy of a letter written to him by my father in the capacity of director of the company asking him to repay the loan or else the company will take legal steps to recover the same. Unfortunately my father has passed away and now there is nobody to take action. Please note that this letter was sent by registered A/D and I posses the original receipt.
Lastly I’am extremely sorry to bother you with our troubles but humbly request you Kind Sir to take some time off your busy schedule and suggest me a few legal options to right the wrong being done to me & my 3rd brother.
Thanking You, I remain,
Yours faithfully,
R V SHASTRY DT:13th NOV 2009.
Anonymous
13 November 2009 at 11:14
PRD HUF is a firm possessing a valid PAN Card. Due to the age of the Karta, and since there being no male members except two daughters, the Karta desires that the firm be dissolve / partitioned before the death of the Karta and how to cancel the PAN Card issued by the Income Tax Authorities?
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Civil Misc.Appeal
In a matter before the CLB under S.397 & 398 of Companies Act, wherein there are one petitioner and five respondents, the CLB passes an order, on an application being made by a proposed respondent, impleading the petitioner as the sixth respondent. Against this order of impleadment, the petitioner takes an appeal to the High court under S.10/f of the companies act. In the appeal, one of the respondents files a M.P., seeking a direction against one other respondent on an issue which is connected with the main petition before the CLB, but no way connected with the matter in appeal. Is the M.P. maintenable ? if so, on what grounds? and if Not, on what grounds? Would our experts enlighten me please?