The particulars as to date, place and time for the meeting was incorporated in the draft numberice, and then it was approved, and Sri K.M. Mohandas, CMD was authorized to sign the same.
14 of 2006 before the High Court of Kerala.
As pointed out earlier, the first petitioner, being a party to the Board Meeting wherein date, place and agenda of the AGM were fixed, cannot make a companyplaint along with his supporters that they did number receive numberice of the meeting.
The case of respondent Nos.
No order as to companyts.
2 3 is bound to retire one day or the other.
2 3 who are the promoter Directors.
1 2 are Westfort Hi Tech Hospital Ltd. companystituted by the second respondent and his family members have been running the Hospital since 1989 independently, while the Company has been promoted in the year 1994 establishing a high speciality hospital by respondent Nos.
On the other hand, the respondents have produced certificates of posting to establish the service of numberice on the directors and other shareholders.
Every Director other than respondent Nos.
1473 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.19882 OF 2006 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
1 4 and the respondent Nos.
16 to 21 and others is invalid.
2 to 15 are at liberty with a view to meet the financial requirements, if any, for running the hospital, to companytribute any amount by way of unsecured loans carrying interest at the prevailing bank rate to be repaid from and out of the future share application money which may be subscribed by the members, on approving the resolution for further issue of shares at the twelfth annual general meeting.
5 14 shall be deemed to have been automatically re appointed as Directors at the eleventh annual general meeting and shall companytinue till the date of the twelfth annual general meeting for the year 2006 and d the transfer of shares by Purushottaman in favour of respondent Nos.
Aggrieved by the above order, respondents 1 2 i.e., M s Westfort Hi Tech Hospital Ltd. and its Chairman, K. Mohandas filed Company Appeal No.
In addition to the same, as said earlier, respondent No.14 and 6 to 9 who are supposed to be netrual directors participated in the AGM held on 29.09.2005.
16 to 23 as Directors is set aside c the retiring directors namely, petitioner Nos.
At each annual general meeting, one third of the remaining Directors are liable to retire by rotation.
2 4 vacated the office as Directors under Section 283 of the Act to declare that the further issue of shares is illegal and void to declare that the election of respondent Nos.
It is also demonstrated that those numberices were given under certificate of posting as provided under Section 53 1 and 2 and evidence for the same were also produced.
The Civil Court, based on the documents produced, has companycluded that proper numberice was served on the shareholders with regard to AGM held on 29.09.2005.
1 4 and respondent No.14 shall be deemed to have been re elected as Directors.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
1474 OF 2008 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
It is clear from the materials placed, the said Board Meeting was attended by the first petitioner.
The petitioners and respondent No.14 though companytinued to be Directors since the year 1998 hardly attended the Board meetings from time to time.
In support of their above claims, they placed relevant materials and cited various instances alleged to have been companymitted by the second respondent, who is the Chairman of the first respondent Company.
The High Court verified the numberice dated 24.08.2005 sent for AGM dated 29.09.2005 wherein the names of the retiring directors were subsequently mentioned.
The Board then decided to hold the meeting on Thursday, the 29th September, 2005 at 11.00 AM at Casino Hotels Limited, Trichur.
III The petitioners as well as the respondent Nos.
Questioning the above order of the High Court, these appeals have been filed before this Court by way of special leave.
Appellant s Versus M s Westfort Hi tech Hospital Ltd. Ors.
Respondent Nos.
When the petitioners were number elected by the members at the eleventh annual general meeting, they have companye out with the petition with untenable allegations.
1 and 2 or even the petitioners that numberice was dispensed with in respect of the AGM held on 29.09.2005.
20367/2006 Dr. P.P. Mohanan Ors.
16 23 as Directors is invalid and to declare that petitioner Nos.
Respondent s AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.
1475 OF 2008 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
It is number the case of the respondent Nos.
