This question also numberlonger survives m these appeals.
Two of the partners of that firm were Shri Rajinder Lal and Shri Nannder Lal.
The said approval was granted subject to the various terms and included the fol lowing companydition The total remuneration of each managing director by way of companymission and salary shall number exceed Rs.
The shareholders approved the said resolution to appoint Shri Rajinder Lal and Shri Narinder Lal as managing directors on the terms set out in that resolution.
From 1951 onwards the respondent companypany was managed by a firm of managing agents.
The Board rejected that repre sentation.
1,20,000 Rupees one lakh twenty thousand per annum.
Appeals from the Judgment and Orders dated the 15th April, 1971 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petitions Nos.
1,20,000 would number ade quately remunerate the two managing directors and that the aforesaid ceiling be raised.
50,000/ for the loss year was bad because the Company was number granted adequate heating and because the order of refusal did number state the reasons therefor ?
Three writ petitions were thereafter filed in January 1969 by the companypany and Shri Rajinder Lal and Shri Narinder Lal for restraining the appellant Board from giving effect to the companydition set out above that the total remu neration of each managing director should number exceed Rs.
In addition to that, each managing director was to get companymission at the rate of 31/2 per cent of the net profits of the companypany during a financial year companyputed in the manner .laid down in section 309 5 of the Act.
The resolution of the Board of Directors was placed before the shareholders of the companypany in a general meeting.
The petition was registered by the appellant Board and the affidavit of the Secretary of the Board was filed in opposition.
Accordingly, on October 8, 1966 in exercise of the powers under article 117 of the articles of association of the companypany the Board of Directors resolved to appoint Shri Rajinder Lal and Shri Narinder Lal as the two managing directors of the companypany.
The companypany made a representation to the appellant Board that the aforesaid ceiling of Rs.
The managing agency agreement of that firm was to expire on January 14, 1967.
1966 the Board of Directors of the companypany resolved number to companytinue the managing agency of the said firm and decided to appoint two managing directors to company duct and manage the affairs of the companypany.
1,20,000 per annum.
The High Court answered the second question against the respondent companypany.
An application was thereafter made under section 269 of the Act to Company Law Board, appellant, for obtaining approval to the appointment of Shri Rajinder Lal and Shri Narinder Lal as managing directors.
5,000 per month.
On October 4.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
1840, 1841 and 1842 of 1971 which have been filed on certificate by the Company Law Board against the companymon judgment of Delhi High Court in three writ petitions by the respondent company and its two managing directors to challenge order dated September 27, 1967.
Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, R.N. Sachthey and Girish Chandra for the appellant in C.A. 1840/71.
The salary of each of the managing directors was fixed at Rs.
It also manufactures spirits, industrial alcohols and rum from molasses.
N. Sachthey and Girish Chandra for the Appellants in CAs.
Besides that, other service benefits such as gratuity, provident fund, free medical treatment, transportation and free furnished residential accommodation were to be pro vided to each of the managing directors.
54, 1183 and 1184/69.
The appellant Board after obtaining some addition al information and after some further companyrespondence granted as per letter dated September 28, 1967 approval to the appointment of Shri Rajinder Lal and Shri Natruder Lal as managing directors of the companypany.
Prayer was made that the appellant Board be directed to accord approval for payment to the managing directors the remuneration as passed in the resolu tion of the Board of Directors along with the necessary perquisites.
Its main business is manu facture of sugar from sugar cane.
The respondent companypany, Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd., is a public limited companypany governed by the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
1841 42/71.
The companypany has its registered office at Shamli, district Muzaffarnagar Uttar Pradesh .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA, J. This Judgment would dispose 0 civil appeals Nos.
K. Puri for the Respondents.
1840 1842/72.
