TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (4) TMI 433
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs himself for re-appointment. 4.To appoint auditors and to fix their remuneration and for that purpose to pass the following Resolution as a Special Resolution : "Resolved that pursuant to section 224A and other applicable provisions, if any, of the Companies Act, 1956 M/s Thakur Vaidyanath Aiyar & Co., Chartered Accountants be and are hereby appointed Auditors of the company to hold such office from the conclusion of this meeting until the conclusions of the next Annual General Meeting on such remuneration as may be fixed by the Board of Directors of the company." Special business 5.To consider, and if though fit, to pass with or without modification, the following Resolutions, as Ordinary Resolutions: 5.1Resolved that Shri A.K. Mukhopadhyay, be and is hereby appointed as Director of the Company, liable to retire by rotation. 5.2Resolved that Shri S. Natarajan, be and is hereby appointed as Director of the Company, liable to be retire by rotation. 5.3"Resolved that Shri H.S. Dubey, be and is hereby appointed as Director of the Company, liable to be retire by rotation. 5.4Resolved that Shri R.P. Sharma, be and is hereby appointed as Director of the Company, liable to be re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere not independent persons but were employed by the defendants and more specifically the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to represent them in certain proceedings before the Hon'ble Company Law Board. Both the scrutineers are Company Secretaries who have represented the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and/or the companies in which they have a substantial interest in various proceedings before various Tribunals and forums. Thus, the said scrutineers are not impartial scrutineers as is required under section 184 of the Companies Act. The objections regarding appointment of scrutineers were raised by the plaintiffs are the meeting itself and vide their separate letters dated 11-12-1997, 15-12-1997 and 17-12-1997. 53(E.) That despite the request of the plaintiffs to appoint impartial scrutineers, vide their letter dated 22-12-1997, the plaintiff No. 1 company was informed of the fact that the adjourned 27th AGM would be held on 16-1-1998. This is indicative of the fact that the concerned defendants were manipulating the proxy votes and ballot papers specially because they had refused all requests and demands of inspection of the votes raised by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also apprehend that the cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as shown to the Local Commissioner. It is uncontrovertable that when the results are admitted to have been declared on 20-1-1998, the change in accepted number of ballots on a later date indicate a continuous manipulation of results. That it is reliably learnt that subsequently 5 ballot papers which could not be rejected on any valid grounds, have been accepted as valid by the defendant No. 6. 53(H.) That it is significant to note that although the authorisation of the plaintiff and financial institutions and more specifically of the plaintiff No. 1 which is the sweeping vote, have not been accepted by defendant No. 1 to 5 on frivolous grounds. It is most respectfully submitted that the authorisation of the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 and other financial institutions are valid and strictly in accordance with provisions of section 187 of the Companies Act. The rejection of the ballots cast by the said parties are on illegal, invalid and frivolous grounds and liable to be rectified. 53(I.) That is important that the defendant Nos. 1 to 10 except defendant No. 5 in active connivance with three scrutineers have manipulated poll results. The misconduct on the part of the said defendants is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s further continuing since the said persons are indulging in various acts of commission and omission in such alleged capacities, which are patently ultra vires and detrimental to the public interest, and the interest of the defendant No. 1 company in particular." Amendments are also sought in paras 57 and 58 of the plaint. The suit was originally filed, inter alia, praying that the meetings of the Board of Directors held on 14-8-1997 and 29-8-1997 of the defendant company be declared illegal, beyond jurisdiction and ultra vires. Further declaration was sought that the appointment of defendant No. 6 as Chairman and Managing Director was illegal and the appointment of defendant Nos. 7 to 9 as Additional Directors was also illegal. 3. A decree for permanent injunction was sought against defendant No. 6 from his continuing to function as Chairman and Managing Director and Defendant Nos. 7 to 9 as Additional Directors. Further a restraint order was sought against the defendant company from implementing any decision taken in the Board Meetings held on 14-8-1997 and 29-8-1997. On 18-8-1997 this Court passed an interim order directing that the decision taken in the meeting of the Board ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an and Managing Director as well as defendant Nos. 7 to 9 as Additional Directors was illegal and void. As a matter of fact, by the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs are trying to add new cause of action inasmuch as the AGM of the defendant No. 1 - company, the election result and the appointment of scrutineers are different and distinct cause of actions for which the plaintiff ought to have filed separate suit, therefore, Mr. Kapur has contended that all the paras, i.e., paras 53 (A) to (I) as enumerated above give separate cause of actions for which separate evidence has to led and the same are not connected with the reliefs sought in the suit and hence the application for amendment should be dismissed. He has further contented that the amendments sought for in the prayer clause is also an independent relief, which has not been sought in the original plaint and all these prayers, which have been sought for by the plaintiff-applicant, are different bundle of facts and have nothing to do with the prayer of the plaintiff as maintained in the original suit. He has further contended that the amended relief depends upon new set of facts and give a separate cause of action and hence no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t No. 1 company whereas the other Swarup Group has got approximately 25 per cent of share in defendant No. 1 company. In the original plaint serious and grave allegations of collusion between defendant No. 6 and Swarup Group has been made in paras 48, 49 and 50 of the original plaint against the mathod and manner in which appoint- ment of defendent No. 6 as Chairman and Managing Director as well as appointment of defendant Nos. 7 to 9 as the Additional Directors were made. Para 53 of the original plaint read as under: "The board of directors under the Chairman and Managing Director illegally appointed in the circumstances, as stated above, will engage themselves in various acts which gravely affect the interest of the company. Immediately after the illegal assumption of the office by the defendant No. 6, the Directors of Swarup Group and the defendant No. 6 had started indulging in many illegal actions which will change the character and the control of the company and is detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff. Thus, the dishonesty of their actions and design manifest from the following : (a)The plaintiffs apprehend that in the circumstances, as stated above, and with a Cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y will take to undermine the interest of the company and the present shareholders and extend the tentacles of their grip over the company and its affairs." 9. Therefore, the disputes essentially were between the plaintiff and the method and manner of appointment of defendant Nos. 6 to 9 by the Board of Directors of the company. When the suit was filed only the meetings of 14-8-1997 and 29-8-1997 had taken place, therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit. The subsequent events, ie., ratification of these appointments by the AGM which was held on 5-12-1997, appointment of scrutineers by defen- dant No. 6, rejection of proxies and ballot papers and authorisation under section 187 of the financial institutions and the plaintiff are the events of the same sequence, which started on 14-8-1997 and 29-8-1997. It cannot be said for a moment that all these facts are separate cause of actions. If the Court at the first instance would have stayed all the resolutions of the meetings held on 14-8-1997 and 29-8-1997, nothing further could be done by the defendants, it is on account of the fact that the Court allowed the annual general meeting to be held and elections to be conducted, the need for....