Find a Lawyer

IN THE MATTER OF: MESSRS FRONTIER CERAMICS LIMITED versus IN THE MATTER OF: MESSRS FRONTIER CERAMICS LIMITED

Failure to hold an annual general meeting by Articles 158 and 476 of the Company, for the implementation of the fine company which had to hold its annual general meeting, was jailed for holding it within the stipulated time, the Company and Shocked notices were given to its directors, including the Chief. The company's executive dispute was that the annual general meeting for the relevant year was neither intentional nor intentional, but the explanation offered by the company could not be satisfied with the fact that the factory was closed. Protecting cars / shareholders was one of the main goals. The ordinance of the companies, 1984 Westers / Shareholders who provided the badges for capital formation, their interest was protected by timely, reasonable and meaningful development and it was an annual and interim account. Could provide information about. The Company's Annual General Meeting was a forum where investors could speak, discuss and vote freely, in matters pertaining to the acceptance of accounts, appointment of auditors, selection of directors, and so on. Didn't observe. It can be legitimately inferred from such matters that the chief executive and directors had failed to protect the interests of the shareholders in the past. A promise to impose a maximum fine of Rs 50,000 was made. Additional fine of Rs. 2,000 per day for the company and each director and permanent default, 10 per chief executive and each director. top advocates from Sangla Hill lawyer