A single Judge of the High Court granted the petition holding that the managing agent was a private limited companypany and the reasons for failure to extend the managing agency agreement of Govan Brothers being entirely personal to V.H. Dalmia were companypletely irrelevant in so far as the affairs of the Managing Agent companypany or of the petitioner Company Rampur Company were companycerned.
488 of 1969 and the respondent in C.A. No.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order, dated November 4, 1968 of the Delhi High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
Dalmia and others had companymitted offences of criminal breach of trust.
C. Mitra, S. Ray, B.K. Chakravarti, H.K. Puri and B.N. Kirpal, for the appellant in C.A. No.
The learned Judge who heard the petition after remand proceeded to dismiss the writ petition.
Another application by the Rampur Company dated August 25, 1966 for extension of the term of the managing agency upto August 1970 was rejected by the Board.
489 of 1969 .
In the view of the Commission, H. DaImia was in the year 1946 47 guilty of grossly improper companyduct in relation to several companypanies of which he was a director.
Jagdish Swarup, Solicitor General, V. C. Mahajan and P. Nayar, for the respondents in C.A. No.
In July 1946 a group.
On December 10, 1959 the Rampur Company reappointed Govan Brothers, Managing Agent for ten years with effect from August 15, 1960, and applied to the Central Government that the extension of the managing agency of Govan Brothers be approved.
In appeal against that order a Division Bench of the High Court observed that where a Managing Agent is a companyporate body, the acts and companyduct of the Directors of that body become the object of scrutiny in determining whether such a companyporate body may be companysidered to be a fit and p.roper person for appointment or reappointment as Managing Agent, and that the enquiry must companyer all relevant activities and actions of the Directors of the companyporate body.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals No.
In the report of the Commission headed by Mr. Justice Vivian Bose appointed to enquire into and report on the working of the Dalmia Jain Group of Industries, the dealings of V.H. DaImia in relation to the financial affairs of some of the companypanies of which he was a director was severely criticized.
The Central Government granted extension for five years under s. 326 of the Companies Act with effect from August 15, 1960.
488 of 1969 and the appellants in C.A. No.
By virtue of s. 330 of the Companies Act, 1956, the manaing agency of the Rampur Company was to expire on August 15, 1960, unless before that date the managing agent was re appointed for a fresh term in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act.
30 of 1968.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. The Rampur Distillery Company Ltd. hereinafter called the Rampur Company is a manufacturer of industrial alcohol.
488 and 489 of 1969.
489 of 1969 .
On March 19, 1953, information was lodged by the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, Delhi, that V. Ii.
This appli cation was referred by the Central Government to the Company Law Board which was companystituted under s. 10E of the Companies Act, 1956, with authority to.
of persons who may be referred to as.
In May 1964 the police lodged criminal proceedings against V.H. Dalmia and 23 others in the Court of the District Magistrate, Delhi, charging them with being parties to a criminal companyspiracy having for its objects the companymission of criminal breach of trust of the assets of the Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd., and companymitting offences of forgery and falsification of accounts, and that criminal breach of trust was companymitted by them in respect of amounts running into crores of rupees.
Against that order two appeals have been preferred one by the Company Law Board, and the other by the Rampur Company with special leave.
The Rampur Company then moved a petition in the High Court of Delhi on June 10, 1967, for an order quashing the decision of the Board and for an order extending the term of the managing agency till March 31, 1970.
The High Court accordingly set aside the order and remitted the case for a fresh decision.
