But there should be a valid reason for single director BM like death of other board members. Denial by second director to attend BM is not a justified reason. Here comes the role of impracticability u/s 186. Hence in my opinion case law is of no use.

Regards

yes sir, section 186 is the best way out.

And your hand book , its an excellent post mortem of the facts. really great reference .

Thanks and Regards

Neeta.

Originally posted by : Neeta
	yes sir, section 186 is the best way out. And your hand book , its an excellent post mortem of the facts. really great reference . Thanks and Regards Neeta.

Please tell me are you 100% convinced with my calculation or any doubt pending?

Great discussions !

I really enjoyed this discussion.. thanks alot to Mr. Alex, Mr. Ankur & Ms. Neeta... !

Dear Neeta and Adarsh,

Please download the file and Just see what they have done to my own handwritten handout. It’s almost one year or mujha aaj pata chala.

Jai ho Admin ki !!! This is something unbelievable.  

Originally posted by : Ankur Garg
	Dear Neeta and Adarsh, Please download the file and Just see what they have done to my own handwritten handout. It’s almost one year or mujha aaj pata chala. Jai ho Admin ki !!! This is something unbelievable.

Unable to download ! its gving following error !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Adobe Reader 7.0 has encountered a problem and needs to close.  We are sorry for the inconvenience.

Originally posted by : Ankur Garg
	Originally posted by : Neeta yes sir, section 186 is the best way out. And your hand book , its an excellent post mortem of the facts. really great reference . Thanks and Regards Neeta Please tell me are you 100% convinced with my calculation or any doubt pending?

 No sir , if i wasn't convinced i would n't have admitted it anyway.

Definetly , i'm clear and agree on section 186 route.

But why i made the interpretation is : Isn't it a very simple thing , that usually occurs in the pvt ltd co ( 100,000 paid up , paper company) where theres only two directors in which the one would be for name sake only . And disputes , its common in companies. So for such common and usual matter :what i was looking for was>> an easy way out rather than going for CLB.

hopes , i am clear.

and yes as said by adarsh : the discussion was interesting and really added to the knowledge.

Originally posted by : Ankur Garg
	Dear Neeta and Adarsh, Please download the file and Just see what they have done to my own handwritten handout. It’s almost one year or mujha aaj pata chala. Jai ho Admin ki !!! This is something unbelievable.

 goodness !! its really unbelievable , they don't even took the time to type it out to make it somewhat original.....

and i agree on what they said in the first page about the note. Thou i haven't yet got the time to go thru all the 23 pages but so far i ve read.. it's great and can't resist again saying : its execellent . coz as far for me ,it was like : first get pass in the exams >> padayee baad mein...  

needn't say its joke only : as regards our CS.

Dear Neeta,

Even message on first page is my creation. How funny is that?

Just check the link:

Download: Company Law Notes_My Best File Uploaded on CAClub

Agree --- disputes and impracticabilities are there.

But 186 is just a route but it is indeed very difficult to convince CLB/Tribunal.

In other words approval u/s 186 is not an easy task at all. In fact it is much difficult than amicable settlement of dispute.

Hello everybody !

I just went to see my lawyer yesterday to get his advices too.

His answer is that i should FIRST find a good reason to remove the director otherwise even if i remove him in a legal way that could be invalidate by the court in case he is going to the tribunal to contest the company's decision.

As per my lawyer there should be a valid reason to remove a director, which could be a prove that he had cheated or tried to cheat the company or that he could be nefast for the company to keep him.

Unless we can prove one of these facts then it is not legal to remove a director.

Is there any jurisprudence ?

Please advice

Kind regards

Alex

Dear Alex,

Plz don’t get me wrong but I totally disagree with the views of your lawyer. Tell him not to waste your time.

For removal of director we have to follow the route of section 284. As per a decided case there is no need to give any notice or justification for removal u/s 284.

Civil Court cannot interfere in the matters of removal of a director

Kindly refer the case mentioned below:

Khetan Industries Private Limited  Vs. Manju Ravindra Prasad Khetan (1995) 16 CLA 169 (Bom)

In this case it was held by the court that the shareholders have a right to remove the directors under section 284 by passing ordinary resolution and section 284 provides an inbuilt mechanism for the enforcement of the right and civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for removal of director. 

Regards

It is not necessary to give reasons or explanatory statement for removal of a director

It is not necessary to give reasons in the special notice given to the company or in the company's notice to the members, or in the resolution proposed by the company's Board itself, for removal of a director.

As per LIC of India v Escorts Ltd. (1986) the provisions of section 173(2) as to the explanatory statement are not applicable in respect of the resolution for the removal, because the company is merely acting in pursuance of a special notice received by it to move the resolution; it is not a resolution proposed by the company.

Dear Alex,

Ankur ji is right. I am also not agree wid the lawyer's view.