Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2020 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 153 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURTAdjournment of conducing Annual General Meeting (AGM) - stay on result of election and/or voting - Ex parte adinterim or interim order - scope of an appeal - three appeals are against adinterim orders when only the parties to the testamentary suit were present before the Court - Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - HELD THAT:- The impugned order dated 2nd August, 2019, as clarified by the order dated 5th August, 2019, is, therefore, not sustainable in view of the fact that orders and/or directions were passed interfering with the holding of AGM by Companies which are separate juristic entities without first deciding the issue of jurisdiction. Even if the deceased held shares in such Companies, which are subject matter of the bequest under the Will in question, the jurisdiction to pass orders in respect thereof had to be decided first when specifically raised. The order dated 9th August, 2019, which is a subsequent order wherein the learned Single Judge has exercised probate jurisdiction when the issue of inherent lack of jurisdiction was kept pending for decision, is also not sustainable on the same ground. The order dated 2nd August, 2019 as clarified by the order dated 5th August, 2019 is set aside on the ground that the jurisdiction as to the authority of the probate Court to pass orders against Companies which are third parties to the testamentary suit should have been decided first before passing any other order as the issue relates to inherent lack of jurisdiction and goes to the root of the matter, particularly in view of the fact that a probate Court only in an extreme case can pass an order of injunction. So far as the order dated 9th August, 2019 is concerned, the same also is set aside on two grounds. It is a subsequent order again passed without first deciding the issue of jurisdiction prior to interfering with the AGM of a third party Company as also for being devoid of reasons. The adinterim orders/ ex-parte adinterim orders continued for around eight (8) months but when it involves an inherent lack of jurisdiction the said orders have to be set aside. The same is our conclusion even if the order is treated as an ad interim order. Appeals allowed.
|