TMI Blog1992 (8) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Board of Directors meeting held on 30-4-92 are illegal and void and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the rights of the plaintiff as a director of the first defendant-company and other reliefs. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Company was incorporated in November 1987; that the plaintiff was one of the Directors of the company; that by reason of his being absent for five consecutive meetings of the Board of Directors by virtue of Section 283( l)(g) of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as an 'Act') the office of the Director has fallen vacant and by means of resolution passed in the Annual General Meeting held on 30-4-92 that fact was communicated to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the decision of our High Court in Avanthi Explosives v. Principal Subordinate judge, (1987) 63 Company Cases 301 argued that the Civil Court has jurisdiction where the jurisdiction is not excluded specifically or by implication by the Act and that the suit to declare that the plaintiff was not disqualified to be Director or Managing Director is maintainable. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants on the other hand relying upon V.N. Patil v. Maharashtra Seeds Corporation Limited, (1990) 68 Company Cases 608 argued that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court must be explicitly conferred by the Central Government; that under Section 10 of the Companies Act, essentially it is the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain any dispute in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Wine Agencies v. M/s. Venedela Distilleries (P) Limited, AIR 1984 A.P. 274 in which it is held that the relief in the form of temporary mandatory injunction cannot be granted unless the plaintiff shows a clear right and a case of necessity and of extreme hardship and that the Court should exercise its jurisdiction of granting temporary mandatory injunction with greatest possible care and in cases where the remedy of damages is inadequate in the interests of justice. 11. The third objection is on the ground that the temporary injunction granted is very wide in its terms so as to completely prevent the defendants from transacting any business which is not permissible. The impugned order in effect prohibits the first defendant from making ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
