9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent/defendant from holding out as managing director of the first respondent/defendant-company-Coromandel Indag Products India Ltd., directed the second defendant to convene a general body meeting of the first defendant-company and to elect board of directors in accordance with articles of association. 2. As the case could be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to detail all the facts, except the relevant ones, as mentioned hereunder : The first defendant-company-Coromandel Indag Products India Ltd., is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. According to the plaintiffs, they are the shareholders. A suit was preferred for declaration that the appointment and continuation of the second respondent, Arun R. Fredr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d no legal basis and that he was not even a director, ought to have granted interim injunction against the second defendant as prayed for. 4. Further, according to counsel for the appellant, learned judge has grievously erred in directing the second defendant to convene the general body meeting of the first defendant-company as express finding has been given that the second defendant is not the managing director, much less a director and, thereby, he cannot call for general body meeting of the first defendant-company. It can be called only in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act and such direction being contrary to the aforesaid law, should be interfered with in this appeal. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... body meeting is concerned, we are of the view that no such direction should have been issued by learned judge as no such prayer was made by either of the parties. If the second defendant, prima facie, found to be not the managing director or director of the company, he even cannot convene the general body meeting of the first defendant-company. There is a procedure under the Companies Act, 1956, as per which any shareholder, having more than the requisite shares (10 per cent) can call for a general body meeting. If such direction was required to be given, in that case, the plaintiffs or any other defendants, who is a shareholder, should have been asked to take steps in accordance with law for convening a general body meeting of the first d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
