Calcutta High Court
Navin Chandra Ojha vs Calcutta Safe Deposit Co. Ltd. & … on 24 September, 2020 ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA No.GA/13/2019(Old No:GA/2234/2019)
In CS/159/2010
NAVIN CHANDRA OJHA
-Versus-
CALCUTTA SAFE DEPOSIT CO. LTD. & ORS.
IA No.GA/16/2020(Old No.GA/1234/2020)
In CS/159/2010
NAVIN CHANDRA OJHA
-Versus-
CALCUTTA SAFE DEPOSIT CO. LTD. & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon’ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
Date : 24th September, 2020.
(Via Video Conference)
Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, Advocate appears for petitioner
Mr. Mainak Bose, Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Mr. Anirban Ghosh,
Advocates for Navin Chandra Ojha
Mr.Dhruba Ghosh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Rohit Banerjee, Mr. Asoke Basu,
Advocates for respondent no.5
THE COURT: GA 2234 of 2019 is item no.4 in day’s supplementary
list. Applicant is one of the Directors of the company. Mr. Ghosh, learned
senior advocate appears on his behalf and submits, his client in a fit of
passion said he had resigned from the company and that found record in
minutes of meeting held on 6th July, 2019. His client thereafter wrote
letter dated 8th July, 2019 to the Chairman and withdrew such resignation.
Mr. Ghosh submits, the recording of intention to resign and
subsequent withdrawal thereof by letter does not amount to a resignation
2
under section 168 of Companies Act, 2013. His client had not given a
notice in writing to the company. Nor did the Board, on receipt of such
record, take note of the same and intimate the Registrar. There is no
resignation. This is an application for a declaration to that effect, for his
client to continue as director.
Mr. Bose, learned advocate appears on behalf of the other director. He
submits, the minutes fulfills the requirement of section 168, as being a
notice in writing of resignation. On query from Court, Mr. Sengupta,
Learned advocate and Court appointed Chairman submits, the minutes
were penned by him and signed by the parties as well as himself.
Court is satisfied that provisions of section 168 have not been fulfilled
for the purpose of Mr. Ghosh’s client being termed to have resigned.
Court says thus far and is not inclined to go into the other prayers made in
the application. They relate to the functioning of the Chairman and may be
made before him.
With above observation, this application (IA No.GA/13/2019) is
disposed of.
In view of the disposal of the application (IA No.GA/13/2019), the
application being IA No.GA/16/2020 for urgent hearing is also disposed of.
( ARINDAM SINHA, J.)
sb/
Comments