Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 1952 (10) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1952 (10) TMI 17 - HC - Companies Law


Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the election of six directors.
2. Proper notice for the election of directors.
3. Power of the general body versus the board of directors to appoint directors.
4. Inherent power of the general body in the absence of a functioning board.
5. Exclusion of members from voting.
6. Voting by proxy and attorney.
7. Validity of proxies deposited after the original meeting date.
8. Validity of nominations for directors.
9. Authority of the commissioner to adjourn the meeting.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Election of Six Directors:
The appellants argued that the general body only had the power to appoint directors in place of those who retire at the annual meeting, and since only one director retired, the election of six directors was beyond the competence of the meeting. The court held that the notice of the meeting (Exhibit P.6) clearly indicated the election of directors in general and not just in place of the retiring director. Therefore, the objection was overruled.

2. Proper Notice for the Election of Directors:
The appellants contended that there was no proper notice that six directors were to be elected. The court found that the notice (Exhibit P.6) sufficiently informed the members about the election of directors, and the retirement of A.S. Padmanabhan was stated as a fact, not as the sole purpose of the meeting. Thus, this objection was also overruled.

3. Power of the General Body Versus the Board of Directors to Appoint Directors:
The appellants argued that under Article 58, the power to appoint additional directors was exclusively vested in the board. The court examined Articles 47, 53, and 58 and discussed relevant case law, including Blair Open Hearth Furnace Company Ltd. v. Reigart and Worcester Corsetry v. Witting. The court concluded that the general body retained the power to appoint additional directors, especially since Regulation 83 of Table A, which allows the general body to increase or reduce the number of directors, was applicable.

4. Inherent Power of the General Body in the Absence of a Functioning Board:
The court discussed several cases, including Isle of Wight Railway Co. v. Tahourdin and Barron v. Potter, to establish that the general body has inherent power to appoint directors if there is no functioning board. The court found that there was no validly constituted board at the time of the annual meeting on February 26, 1951, and thus the general body had the right to elect the directors.

5. Exclusion of Members from Voting:
The appellants argued that members who were entitled to vote were excluded based on a direction that only those on the register as of November 28, 1950, could vote. The court acknowledged that this direction was contrary to Section 79(1)(e) of the Companies Act but found that the plaintiffs, who were on the register, were not personally affected. Therefore, this objection was overruled.

6. Voting by Proxy and Attorney:
The appellants contended that non-members were allowed to vote as attorneys, which was illegal. The court held that while a proxy must be a member, the term "attorney" in Article 38 was distinct and did not require the attorney to be a member. However, the court found that even excluding the votes of non-members, the result of the election would not be affected.

7. Validity of Proxies Deposited After the Original Meeting Date:
The appellants argued that proxies deposited on February 14 and 15, 1951, were invalid as they were not deposited 72 hours before the original meeting date of January 28, 1951. The court held that since the meeting was not actually held on January 28, 1951, the proxies deposited before the rescheduled meeting date were valid.

8. Validity of Nominations for Directors:
The appellants contended that the nominations for directors were not made seven days before the meeting. The court found that since there was no meeting on January 28, 1951, the nominations made before the rescheduled meeting date were timely and valid.

9. Authority of the Commissioner to Adjourn the Meeting:
The appellants argued that the commissioner had no authority to adjourn the meeting to February 26, 1951. The court held that under Article 35, the chairman had the authority to adjourn the meeting with the consent of the meeting, which was obtained. Additionally, the plaintiffs themselves had moved for the adjournment, precluding them from objecting to it later.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the election of defendants 2 to 7 as directors, and found no merit in the objections raised by the appellants. The judgment emphasized the inherent powers of the general body to ensure the proper functioning of the company in the absence of a validly constituted board and confirmed the procedural correctness of the meeting and election process.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates