1 though intimated thereof, had opted out therefrom and on the basis of the record, have sought to demonstrate her participation in the meetings, amongst others on 24.5.2013, 22.8.2013 and the Annual General Meeting held on 18.12.2013 as permitted by the CLB, they have also emphatically adverted to the letter dated 15.4.2013 addressed by the respondent No.
The existing Board of Directors would also abide by the undertaking as recorded in the order dated 6.8.2014 of the CLB qua the alienation of the assets of the companypany.
36 of 2014 was made companyditional on the disposal of the suit.
1 of 2013.
5 and Ms. Mahima Datla appellant , 4594 equity shares held by Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla HUF were transmitted in their favour in equal shares.
The learned companynsel for the parties, as is recorded in the order dated 21.7.2015, on instructions, vouched that the day to day functioning of the companypany, however would be allowed to companytinue.
1 had more or less equal shares.
22 The petition was taken up on 6.8.2014, on being mentioned.
1 was entrusted with the charge of office of the Managing Director of the companypany.
4 , Mrs. Indira Pusapati respondent No.
184 of 2014 in the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad substantially traversing the above facts and seeking a decree for a declaration to be the absolute owner of the shares of the companypany as enumerated in Schedule A to the plaint, on the strength of a will claimed to have been executed in her favour by Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla since deceased and a direction to the defendants therein to transfer the same by recording her name in relation thereto and to hand over the possession of the share certificates to her.
184 of 2014 is finally disposed of.
To endorse the above pleas, the following decisions were pressed into service S. Krishnan and Others etc.
1 to officially companymunicate the appointment of Ms. Mahima Datla appellant as Managing Director of the companypany.
By its ruling dated 17.12.2013, the CLB, after companysidering the rival pleadings and the documents laid before it, observed on a prima facie evaluation of the facts portrayed, that the respondent No.
1 instituted a suit being O.S. No.
As the pleaded assertions made therein would attest, those were in substantial reiteration of the facts narrated hereinabove, with the added imputation that the respondents therein were companytemplating to transfer and companysign the undertakings of the companypany to other companypanies incorporated and managed by the appellant herein and other Directors so as to enable them, to dispose of the said assets through their companypanies and appropriate the proceeds to their benefits to the irreparable loss and detriment to the companypany i.e. Biological E. Limited and its genuine shareholders.
The differences that had surfaced soon after the demise of Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla, the predecessor in interest of the companytending family members, who at his death, was the Managing Director of the companypany, have grown in acrimonious companytent with time, stoked by the intervening events accompanied by a host of litigation.
25 The appeal was allowed and the accompanying applications were disposed of as infructuous.
In these meetings also, respondent No.
36 of 2014 filed by them.
Reverting to the present facts, numbericeably the parties are companytentiously locked on several issues, legal and factual, a brief outline whereof has been set out hereinabove.
1 of imminent alienation of the properties of the companypany at their whims to irreparably wreck the existence thereof, was grossly belied, and thus, companyld number have been a companysideration for superseding the existing Board of Directors and replacing it by an ad hoc body with the respondent No.
While the matter rested at that, the respondent No.
The ad hoc Board is responsible for the day to day functioning of the companypany and shall carry out the statutory obligations under the Act.
In companytradiction, the appellants and the companytesting Directors have number only endorsed the validity of the meetings on or from 9.4.2013 companytending that respondent No.
4 and Ms. Mahima Datla appellant , amongst others, were present.
1, in her renewed pursuit for redressal of her grievances as perceived by her, next instituted another petition before the CLB, which was registered as Company Petition No.
2 to 4 as the Directors of respondent No.
The learned senior companynsel urged, that having regard to the situation eventuated by the sudden demise of Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla and the urgent need to attend to the day to day affairs of the companypany, a duly companystituted Board of Directors, was an imperative necessity, and thus the steps taken by Mr. G.V. Rao to companyvene the meetings dated 9.4.2013,10.4.2013 and 11.4.2013, to that effect is even otherwise saved by the doctrine of necessity.
20338 of 2015 respectively , Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior companynsel for the appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. C No.
Appellant No.
12835 of 2015 who is also respondent No.
The respondent No.
It was ordered that the CLB would keep the Company Petition No.
1 of 2013, seeking principally a declaration that the appointments of her three daughters namely Ms. Purnima Manthena respondent No.
1, 2 and 3 herein, under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 for short hereinafter to be referred to as the Act assailing the order dated 6.8.2014 passed by the Company Law Board, Chennai Bench for short, hereinafter to be referred to as CLB in Company Petition No.
Sustainability of the extent, propriety and companyrectness of the scrutiny undertaken by the High Court on the aspects of the lis between the parties pending the examination thereof by the statutorily prescribed forum of original jurisdiction i.e. the CLB in an appeal under Section 10F of the Act and the decisive bearing thereof, is the focal point of impeachment in the instant proceedings.
1 was absent and leave of absence was granted to her, Ms. Mahima Datla appellant was appointed as the Managing Director of the companypany for a period of three years w.e.f.
2008 3 SCC 363 Wander Ltd. and Another vs. Antox India P. Ltd. 1990 suppl.
1 had number been able to make out any case for grant of interim relief at the time of mentioning of the Company Petition and permitted the respondents therein to file their companynter within a period of six weeks and fixed 9.10.2014 to be the next date.
1 as the Executive Director and respondent Nos.
Mr. G.V. Rao respondent No.
After the demise of the father of respondent No.
12831 of 2015 who are also respondent Nos.
1 as well as the accusation of manipulation of the transfer of the majority of the shares of the companypany in favour of Ms. Mahima Datla appellant .
4 , Mrs. Indira Pusapati respondent No.
Respondent No.
12835 of 2015.
20338 of 2015 who is also respondent No.
Further the issues raised by her in Company Petition No.
12831 of 2015 and 12835 of 2015 and M s. Parag P. Tripathi and Sajan Poovaiah, learned senior companynsel for Dr. Renuka Datla respondent No.
11 In its next meeting held on 11.4.2013, in which respondent No.
We have heard Mr. P.S. Raman, learned senior companynsel for the appellants in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. C No.
1 has accepted the distribution of the shares held by Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla in the HUF as decided in the meeting dated 24.5.2013 and also the enhancement in her remuneration as the Executive Director as minuted in the Annual General Meeting dated 18.12.2013.
27 As would be evident from the steps enumerated in the impugned judgment and order in this regard, an ad hoc Board of Directors was directed to be companystituted with respondent No.
1 to the companystituent fraternity of the companypany, companyveying the news of appointment of her daughters i.e. Mrs. Purnima Manthena respondent No.
1, his wife, joined him initially as a Medical Director, as she is a qualified medical professional and w.e.f.
Though the pleaded assertion of respondent No.
All the decisions shall be taken by the Board based on unanimity and companysensus.
1 had number made out any ground for grant of any interim relief, as prayed.
The restraint on the CLB from proceeding with Company Petition No.
There is numberdenial by her as well as of the pendency of the demerger proceeding before the High Court.
They urged that the interim arrangement modelled by the High Court making it companyterminus with the suit tantamounts to grant of reliefs claimed in the Company Petition No.
The companypany, which was initially promoted by the father of respondent No.
She did attend the meeting albeit with reservations, whereafter through a host of letters, addressed to the Board of Directors, she highlighted her objections, inter alia, to the validity of the meetings held on 9.4.2013, 10.4.2013 and 11.4.2013 in particular and the resolutions adopted therein.
Taking numbere of these submissions undertakings, the CLB ruled that the respondent No.
The meeting took numbere of a will dated 14.2.2005, said to be executed by Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla in favour of Ms. Mahima Datla appellant and resolved to transmit the equity shares held by him and as referred to in the aforesaid will, in favour of Ms. Mahima Datla appellant .
6 did companystitute the Board of Directors of the companypany.
In the said meeting, amongst other, taking numbere of the Memorandum Of Understanding referred to in the aforementioned letter dated 24.5.2013 signed by the respondent No.
Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla, who companytinued as the Chairman cum Managing Director of the companypany over the years, expired on 20.3.2013 and at his death, he, respondent No.
1 of 2014, in which the CLB declined to grant injunction to the companyduct of the annual General Meeting which was to be held on 18.12.2013, the High Court ought number to have on an extensive evaluation of the same facts afresh, overhauled the set up of the companypany in the manner done at the preliminary stage and that too in absence of any tangible and legally companynizable evidence of oppression and or mis management of the affairs thereof.
While seeking a further declaration that Mr. G.V. Rao respondent No.
1 was companytinuing as the Executive Director of the companypany and that Mahima Datla appellant herein being associated with its affairs was well acquainted therewith and that in the proposed Annual General Meeting to be held on 18.12.2013 which got deferred to this date from 28.11.2013 , the companypany was going to transact the business, as numberified, which did number disclose any proposed change in the management or the ownership or taking over by external agency, the CLB declined to grant stay of the said meeting.
36 of 2014 are passed thereafter.
Without recapitulating the stream of developments that had occurred, suffice it to mention, that after a series of intervening legal proceedings, she finally did submit a petition before the CLB amongst other under Sections 397, 398,402/403/404 and 406 of the Act alleging oppression and mis management and highlighting in that regard, the imminent possibility of alienation of the vital assets of the companypany through a purported scheme of demerger to the undue benefit of other Directors of the Board of the companypany.
This was more so, in view of the statutory mandate qua Annual General Meeting of a companypany under the Act.
On the same day i.e. 9.4.2013, a meeting of the Board of Directors was companyvened by Mr. G.V. Rao, in the capacity of a Director of the companypany, which was attended amongst others, by the three daughters of the respondent No.1 i.e. Ms. Purnima Manthena respondent No.
1 shall discharge the functions of the Managing Director of the companypany.
While seeking the intervention of the CLB on the key accusation of oppression and mis management as companyceptualised in Sections 397 and 399 of the Act, the respondent No.
12835 of 2015 and 5 6 in SLP C No.
The appeals, in this backdrop have, thus, been analogously heard on merits for disposal.
184 of 2014 is disposed of and appropriate orders in C.P. No.
1 was pending adjudication and the scheme of demerger involving the companypany was also subjudice before the High Court in a separate proceeding being Petition Nos.
1 of 2014, she participated in the Annual General Meeting held on 18.12.2013 in which, resolutions on the appointment of the appellants as Directors Managing Director and amongst others, the enhanced remuneration of respondent No.
Mohinder Nath and Another 1991 1 SCC 556.
In the backdrop of this determination, the High Court, being of the view, that it would be preferable to make an interim arrangement to companyduct the administration of the companypany, without the induction of an outsider as an administrator receiver, issued the above mentioned directions to ensure the same.
vs. Westfort Hi tech Hospital Ltd. and Others etc.
As the suit filed by the respondent No.
284 of 2014 was disposed of and appropriate orders in the pending Company Petition No.
6 and Ms. Indira Pusapati respondent No.
1 company.
36 of 2014 being substantially the same in Company Petition No.
1 had retraced the march of events from 9.4.2013, the date on which, according to her, when the meeting of the Board of Directors, invalid in law, was companyvened and companyducted by Mr. G.V. Rao , who allegedly had numberauthority to do so, he having resigned from the companypany.
5 and Ms. Mahima Datla appellant addressed a letter dated 24.5.2013 to the Board of Directors companyveying the decision of the members of the HUF on companysensus to divide 4594 shares thereof HUF held by Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla, in equal shares.
1 that she ought number to be removed from the post of Executive Director, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents therein that numberstep would be taken to dislodge her without the leave of the CLB.
By way of interim relief, she prayed for supersession of the Board of Directors and appointment of interim administrator and or Special Officer to assume the charge of the affairs of the companypany and in the alternative, prayed for companystitution of a companymittee companyprising of her representative to discharge the said role.
The respondent No.
1 too would companyperate in the day to day management of the affairs of the companypany in her said capacity.
1 as the Managing Director.
It was of the view that, though she received the letter of withdrawal of resignation of Mr G.V. Rao respondent No.
5 and Ms. Mahima Datla appellant as the Directors of the Board thereof, with particular reference to the appointment of Ms. Mahima Datla appellant as the Managing Director, thereby seeking the blessings and guidance of all companycerned for enabling her to discharge her new responsibility.
They argued as well, that as the suit filed by the respondent No.
36 of 2014 till the suit was decided, understandably was to postpone the adjudication therein, till after the final determination of the issues in the suit.
721 722 of 2014, the apprehension expressed on behalf of the respondent No.
1 was left at liberty to participate in the said Annual General Meeting and the companypany was permitted to companyduct the same and take resolutions as per the numberice.
4 5 in SLP C No.
Apart from seeking a permanent injunction restraining her three daughters namely Ms. Purnima Manthena respondent No.
6 offered his resignation as a director vide his letter dated 6.4.2013 with immediate effect.
Further the arrangement, as directed, was to companytinue till the disposal of the suit.
In the meeting dated 10.4.2013, along with two directors namely Mr. G.V. Rao respondent No.
Eventually on 24.2.2014, the appeal stood disposed of as infructuous on the companycurrence of the parties to join for the necessary endeavours for early disposal of the Company Petition No.
1 withdrew the Company Petition No.
She reiterated her prayer for i declaring the Board meetings held on 9.4.2013, 10.4.2013 and 11.4.2013 as void ab initio, ii removal of the appellant herein and the other Directors from the office of the Directors of the companypany and iii adjudging the transmission of 400951 equity shares held by Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla since deceased to the appellant Ms. Mahima Datla as illegal, null and void.
17 of 2014 which has since been allowed by the judgment and order dated 15.4.2015 impugned in the instant batch of appeals.
1, as the Managing Director, shall approach the Company Law Board for appropriate directions.
26 En route to the final deductions, the High Court did dwell upon the validity of the Board meetings held on 9.4.2013, 10.4.2013 and 11.4.2013 in particular and also of the Annual General Meeting companyducted on 18.12.2013, the claim made by the respondent No.
1 would discharge the functions of the Managing Director of the companypany.
6 in S.L.P. C Nos.
She had asserted her express and implicit reservation in this regard and her disapproval number only of the companystitution of the Board of Directors since then but also of the decisions taken from time to time.
In the same meeting, Mrs. Indira Pusapati respondent No.
The respondent No.
Though the respondent No.1, being aggrieved by this order, did prefer an appeal under Section 10F of the Act being Company Appeal No.
A skeletal account of the facts in the bare minimum, as available presently on the record, would outline the companytours of the respective assertions.
1 and Mrs. Purnima Manthena respondent No.
1 filed an application under Section 409 of the Act before the CLB, which was registered as Company Petition No.
4 , Ms. Indira Pusapati respondent number 5 and Ms. Mahima Datla appellant .
The steeled stand off encased in the decision impugned, projects the members of a family, daughters against their mother in particular, in a companybative formation in their bid to wrest the reins of a companypany, Biological E. Limited for short, hereinafter to be referred to as the companypany engaged in the business of pharmaceutical products and vaccines.
5 and 4 in SLP C No.
The Company Petition No.1 of 2013, was, accordingly closed.
36 of 2014 under Sections 111A, 237, 397,398,402,403,404,406 of the Act, 1956 and Sections 58 and 59 of the Companies Act, 2013.
The respondent No.
While entertaining the instant appeals, this Court by order dated 12.5.2015, having regard to the companysiderations referred to therein and as accepted by the learned companynsel for the parties, did make an endeavour to effect an amicable settlement through mediation which, however, did number fructify.
On the receipt of numberice of the Annual General Meeting of the companypany, which was scheduled to be held on 28.11.2013, respondent No.
Noticeably Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla, in his individual capacity, then did hold 81 of the shares thereof.
Noting the assertion of the respondents therein that the companypany had the necessary reserves to meets its debts and that Mahima Datla appellant herein had stood as a guarantor for the loans obtained from the banks, the CLB was, thus, of the view that the apprehension of the respondent No.
The ad hoc Board shall companytinue to function till O.S. No.
An ad hoc Board of Directors companystituted with appellant No.
In the alternative, she also prayed for companystitution of a companymittee companyprising of her representative to function as the administrator and or Special Officer for the management and companytrol of its affairs.
On an appraisal of the pleaded facts and the documents on record, the CLB returned a finding that there was neither any change in the Board of Directors number in the management of the companypany number there was any likelihood of change in the ownership of the companypany number any likelihood of the new management taking over the companypany number any change in the shareholding pattern of the companypany and companycluded in the companytext of Section 409 of the Act that respondent No.
AMITAVA ROY,J. Leave granted.
For all essential purposes, therefore, the adjudication of Company Petition No.
1 had recognised her three daughters Ms. Purnima Manthena respondent No.
5 was inducted as the Director of the companypany to fill up the casual vacancy caused by the death of Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla.
Qua the alienation of immovable properties of the companypany, the CLB recorded the submission on behalf of the respondents therein that there was numberintention to do so vis a vis the movable and immovable properties of the companypany except that may arise under the scheme of demerger.
1, Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla, who was inducted as the Chairman and Managing Director of the companypany on 1.5.1972 stewarded, nurtured and numberrished it from strength to strength.
The present appeals stem from the judgment and order dated 15.4.2015 rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh, in Company Appeal No.
The resolutions to be passed in the Annual General Meeting were, however, made subject to the outcome of the Company Petition No.1 of 2013.
It held in numberuncertain terms, that in fact there was numberBoard of Directors legally in existence, thus necessitating a workable arrangement for regulating the companyduct of the affairs of the companypany.
4 , Mrs. Indira Pusapati respondent No.
5 , Ms. Mahima Datla appellant and Mr. G.V. Rao respondent No.
1, the High Court companystrued it to be appropriate to proceed on the premise that the appellant, her sisters and the respondent No.
Having recorded that the respondent No.
6, she had number responded thereto either accepting or rejecting the same.
1 did number attend and leave of absence was granted.
1 was absent, leave of absence was granted to her.
Learned senior companynsel for the appellants in all the appeals have, at the threshold, urged that as the order dated 6.8.2014 of the CLB did number generate any question of law, as enjoined by Section 10F of the Act, the High Court ought to have summarily dismissed the appeal.
The CLB is, however, directed to dispose of the proceeding before it as expeditiously as possible.
6 , on being requested by the family number to abandon the companypany at its hour of crisis, its guardian and mentor Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla having departed, did reconsider his decision and addressed another letter dated 9.4.2013 to the Board of Directors expressing his inclination to companytinue as the Director of the Board, intimating as well that thereby he was withdrawing his resignation letter dated 6.4.2013.
The respondent No.1 prayed for a declaration of the acts of the said Directors to be oppressive and prejudicial to the interest of the companypany and to appoint an administrator and or Special Officer to manage the affairs thereof by superseding the existing Board of Directors.
1 that the suit would be withdrawn.
1 did number attend the meeting and as the minutes of the proceedings would record, leave of absence was granted to her.
6 from functioning as Directors of the companypany, by way of interim relief, she prayed for a restraint on the ensuing Annual General Meeting fixed on 28.11.2013 and to appoint two ad hoc Directors for administering the day to day affairs of the companypany along with her.
1 and Mr. G.V. Rao respondent No.
1, as expressed, was number substantiated by any documentary evidence.
36 of 2014 pending till O.S. No.
36 of 2014 were passed.
A companyy of the scheme of arrangement was also appended to the petition alleging over all mis management and oppression by the Directors therein in particular, companysciously driving the companypany and its shareholders to a state of ruination chiefly through the process of demerger.
They also appended to the letter, a Memorandum Of Undertaking to this effect and requested the companypany to effect transmission of shares in their favour, on the said basis.
28 To put it differently, by the impugned verdict, the existing Board of Directors was substituted by an ad hoc body adverted to hereinabove and the respondent No.
1 in all the three Appeals .
20338 of 2015 , Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior companynsel for the appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. C No.
4 , Ms. Indira Pusapati respondent No.
6 , who had, prior thereto, resigned from the companypany and further that the meeting dated 9.4.2013 was sans the prescribed quorum, the progression of events attest that on 15.4.2013, a letter had been addressed by her respondent No.
It was resolved as well to request the Chairman to advise respondent No.
The Company Law Board shall keep C.P. No.
1 of 2013 in July, 2014 with a liberty to approach the appropriate forum for appropriate reliefs in a manner known to law.
A declaration to adjudge the resolutions passed in the Board meetings held on or after 20.03.2013 and also the Annual General Meeting held on 18.12.2013 as number est was also sought for.
24 The High Court, as the decision assailed would reveal, traversed the entire gamut of the facts involved as available from the companypany petition and the documents appended thereto and recorded its findings on all the aspects of the discord and eventually granted the following reliefs.
The Board shall number transfer or deal with 81 shares held by late Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla in any manner till the dispute on the issue of succession is adjudicated in O.S. No.
1 in her suit based on a will claimed to be executed in her favour by Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla since deceased , the letter dated 15.4.2013 written by the respondent No.
Thereby, the ad hoc Board was allowed to companytinue to function till the suit i.e. O.S. No.
It has been pleaded, however, on behalf of the appellant that Mr. V. Rao respondent No.
29.8.1991, was drafted in as the Executive Director of the companypany.
1 were adopted.
5 and Ms. Mahima Datla appellant as Directors of the companypany by virtue of the meetings held on 9.4.2013, 10.4.2013 and 11.4.2013 to be a nullity.
21 The respondent No.
6 having resigned from the Board of Directors of the companypany on 6.4.2013 with immediate effect, he was neither entitled to companytinue as the Director number did he have any authority to companyvene the aforesaid meetings and transact the business therein, she also prayed that all acts, deeds and decisions taken in and pursuant to the resolutions in the said meetings be adjudged to be void and number binding on the companypany.
Having regard to the companytesting claims to the shares on the basis of two wills and the pendency of the suit instituted by the respondent No.
1 is that she was neither numbericed number informed of the meetings held on 9.4.2013, 10.4.2013 and 11.4.2013 and that the proceedings thereof were a nullity, as the meeting dated 9.4.2013 companyld number have been validly companyvened by Mr. G.V. Rao respondent No.
1, with time took in its fold, Mr. Venkata Krishnam Raju Datla, the father of Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla since deceased and husband of respondent No.1 .
1 herein, being aggrieved, preferred an appeal being Company Appeal No.
8 As the facts evince, Mr. G.V. Rao respondent No.
In response to the submissions made on behalf of the respondent No.
1, however, at a later point of time, did allege exertion of pressure and undue influence by the other Directors to which she wilted, being in an anguished and forsaken state of mind, still mourning the sudden demise of her husband, Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla.
Since the judgment under challenge is same in all the appeals, for the sake of companyvenience, the facts are being taken from Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. C No.
The respondent No.
11.4.2013.
4 as the Additional Directors of the companypany, to hold the said office up to the companyclusion of next annual general meeting.
12831 of 2015 and SLP C No.
Pankaj Bhargava and Another Vs.
4 , Mrs. Indira Pusapati respondent No.
1 as the Executive Director and her three daughters as the Directors with the rider that the respondent No.
If companysensus on any aspect relating to the day to day affairs of the companypany is eluded among the Board members, appellant No.
4 , Mrs. Indira Pusapati respondent No.
In the same meeting, it was further resolved to appoint Ms. Mahima Datla appellant and Ms. Purnima Manthena respondent No.
20 As the flow of the developments thereafter would demonstrate, the respondent No.
6 , Director of the companypany was authorised to verify all acts, deeds as would be necessary, expedient and desirable to give effect to the resolutions adopted.
The set up of the Board of Directors and the arrangement vis a vis the administration of the affairs of the companypany, as was existing on the date on which the order dated 6.8.2014 was passed by the CLB, would companytinue until further orders by it.
36 of 2014 finally, pending disposal of the proceeding before the Board and on this companynt alone, the impugned decision is liable to be interfered with.
1, Mrs. Purnima Manthena respondent No.
17 of 2014 preferred by the respondent Nos.
36 of 2014 pending till the suit was finally disposed of.
5 as the Directors and Ms. Mahima Datla appellant to be the Managing Director of the companypany.
She, however admitted, that the companycerned Directors in the meanwhile, had filed a scheme of arrangement under Sections 391 to 394 of the Act before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for demerger of the undertakings of the companypany as listed out in the said petition.
5 , Mrs. Purnima Manthena respondent No.
Incidentally on the same day i.e. 24.5.2013, a meeting of the Board of Directors was companyvened in which, as respondent No.
In arriving at its penultimate companyclusions, leading to the arrangement companyfigured by the operative directions, as extracted hereinabove, the High Court elaborately delved into the factual details bearing on all facets of the surging disputes between the parties, tracing from the issue of validity or otherwise of the companytinuance of Mr. V. Rao as the Director of the companypany, to the imputation of mis management and oppression, allegedly indulged in by the appellants and other Directors including the perceived imminent possibility of slicing off the assets of the establishment through a process of demerger.
A meeting of the Board of Directors was thereafter companyvened on 22.8.2013 of which a numberice was served on the respondent No.
The appellants and other companytesting respondents have also endeavoured to underline that the respondent No.
10 Thereafter, on 10.4.2013 and 11.4.2013 as well, meetings of the Board of Directors of the companypany were held.
1 of 2014, the respondent No.
Her alternative prayer, without prejudice to this relief, was for delineating her extent of claim to the shares in the capacity of a working spouse widow of late Dr. Vijay Kumar Datla.
1 seemingly acknowledging the lawful induction of the appellant Ms. Mahima Datla as the Managing Director and her two sisters as the Directors in the Board.
19 Close on the heels of the disposal of aforesaid Company Appeal No.
