Notably among those was an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act filed by Mr. Vikram Bakshi.
For this purpose MOU dated 21.12.2005 was entered into between Mr. Deepak Khosla, Mr. R.P. Khosla, MRL and Mr. Vikram Bakshi.
Simultaneously, the High Court has also stayed the operation of the orders dated 31.1.2008 passed by CLB in so far as it has cancelled the shareholding and Directorship of Respondent No.
However, Mr. R.K. Garg who was taken as Director in the purported meeting held on 14.12.2007 also felt aggrieved by the order of the CLB.
1 herein withdrew this petition as alternate remedy of filing appeal against the impugned order of the CLB is provided under Section 10 F of the Companies Act.
Aggrieved by this order of the CLB, Mr. R.P. Khosla filed the appeal in the High Court of Delhi.
The responsibility of development of lands, managing the project and arranging finances would be that of Mr. Vikram Bakshi.
Various miscellaneous applications came to be filed in the aforesaid petition.
Mr. Vineet Khosla also filed an application claiming himself to be the Director of the Company and alleging that Mr. Wadia Prakash and Mr. Vinod Surah had ceased to be the Directors of the Company on 30.9.2006 since they were number companyfirmed in the AGM of the Company and, therefore, the subsequent appointment of Mr. Vikram Bakshi by the Board was bad in law.
Mr. R.K. Garg challenged this order by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi on 26.2.2008.
Both Mr. R.P. Khosla as well as Sonia Khosla filed Review Petitions seeking review of orders dated 11.4.2008 and 22.4.2008 respectively.
As the things stood at that stage, the effect of the aforesaid proceedings was that the order dated 31.1.2008 passed by CLB companytinued to operate.
However, while this application is still pending before the CLB, in October, 2008 she filed another application under Section 340 Cr.
114/2007 is to be withdrawn and the status quo as on the date of filing of the said petition would be maintained, the said C.P. was dismissed as withdrawn.
This was also dismissed by the High Court on 22.4.2008, albiet on merits.
The instant present Special Leave Petition impugns the aforesaid order dated 13.4.2010 passed by the High Court, primarily on the ground that since the appeal is time barred till the delay is companydoned there is numberappeal in the eyes of law and, therefore, the High Court companyld number have passed interim orders.
Her allegation was that she held 49 shares in the Company which had been further reduced to 36 and that the affairs of the Company were being managed in a manner oppressive to the minority shareholders.
The said agreement, inter alia, provided that Land for the project shall be purchased in the name of MRL.
In that writ petition orders of status quo were passed on 7.4.2008 However, on 9.4.2009, Mr. R.K. Garg Respondent No.
PC before the CLB alleging that forged documents were filed before the CLB.
On 11.4.2008, numbericing that the parties had agreed that C.P. No.
The project was joint venture between the Khosla Group and Mr. Vikram Bakshi wherein the Bakshi Group was to pump in the necessary finances and to take charge of administration by managing the entire project.
After withdrewing the writ petition the Respondent No.
Another significant development which took place was that on 18.12.2007 purported meeting of the Company was held by Ms. Sonia Khosla and Mr. Vinay Khosla wherein Mr. Deepak Khosla and Mr. R.K. Garg were appointed as the Directors of the Company and in this meeting the Board of the Company allotted 6.58 lakhs equity shares to eleven persons of the Khosla Group.
An agreement dated 31.3.2006 was entered, for executing the proposed project, between the respondent, Ms. Sonia Khosla, wife of Mr. Deepak Khosla, Mr. R.P. Khosla, MRL and Mr. Vikram Bakshi.
The effect of the status quo ante order was that he companyld number be treated as the Director of the Company during the subsistence of the said order.
Whereas appeal filed by Mr. R.P. Khosla was dismissed on 11.4.2008, the appeal of Ms. Sonia was dismissed on merits on 22.4.2008 and the Review Petitions filed by both of them were also dismissed on 6.5.2008.
The agreement recorded that 51 shareholding in the companypany had been transferred to Mr. Vikram Bakshi.
1 filed Co. Appeal No.
In this petition she admitted that majority shareholding was with Mr. Vikram Bakshi.
The Company Law Board CLB passed orders dated 31.1.2008 directing the maintenance of status quo with regard to the shareholding and the Directors of the Company as it existed on the date of the filing of the petition i.e. 13.8.2007.
The relief prayed for in the said petition, inter alia, was for passing an order for removal of the petitioners from the Board of Directors of the Company.
Further, as mentioned above this order was challenged both by R.P. Khosla as well as Ms. Sonia Khosla by filing appeal in the High Court.
Pursuant to the MOU dated 23.12.2005, Mr. Vinod Surah and Mr. Wadia Prakash numberinees of Mr. Vikram bakshi were appointed as Additional Directors of MRL.
Sonia Khosla had also filed appeal against the same very order dated 31.1.2008 of the CLB.
The Bakshi Group also taken the position that Mr. Wadia Prakash and Mr. Vinod Surah companytinue to be legally appointed Directors and likewise appointment of Mr. Vikram Bakshi by the Board of the Company was also as per law.
These Review Petitions were also dismissed on 6.5.2008.
Observations were made in this order that the respondent Sonia Khosla had tried to overreach the CLB by changing it companyposition and to increase the share capital of the Company.
SB 23 of 2009.
However, he sought permission to withdraw the appeal.
In this appeal the companypany judge of the High Court has passed orders dated 13.4.2010 issuing numberice in the said appeal, in the application for companydonation of delay as well as in the stay application.
