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

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (5) TMI 282

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ase on hand, when a specific stand is taken that in view of the provisions of Companies Act the suit is not maintainable, the checkered history between the contesting parties and the chronology of the actions taken by the respondents , in our opinion, do not decide the maintainability of the suit. We find the conclusion recorded by the High Court to be highly unsatisfactory. On the question whether the plaintiffs have a prima facie case, the High Court recorded a cryptic conclusion without recording any reasons (at para 7.2) that they have a strong prima facie case. On the question of the balance of convenience also, the order of the High Court is very equivocal. But the High Court went on to issue certain directions.The High Court at p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s. 3. The respondents herein preferred the above mentioned AFO No.548 of 2014. They were the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 652 of 2014. Alongwith the Civil Suit, they filed an interim application seeking certain interim reliefs. The prayer in the interim application is as follows:- i) restraining defendant Nos.2 to 9 by an order and injunction from convening and/or holding and/or attending any meeting of the Board of Directors of the defendant company, and/or from voting threat and/or pass any resolution by Circulation, so as to frustrate and/or prevent the holding of EGM requisition by the plaintiffs pursuant to the Notice dated 18th December, 2014 (Ext. H and I hereto). ii) to order and direct the defendants by themselves, their .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ice below mark 4/1 and therefore, this suit is itself is premature. Hence, even on this count also the plaintiff is not entitled for equitable relief and therefore, Points No.1 to 3 are accordingly answered in to negative and pass following other for deciding Point No.4. ORDER This application Exh.5 is hereby rejected. 5. Aggrieved by the same, AFO 548 of 2014 came to be filed by the respondents herein before the High Court. The appellants herein took a definite stand both before the trial Court as well as before the High Court that the suit itself is not maintainable and the remedy, if any, to the respondents herein is to approach the Company Law Board under Section 186 of the Companies Act, 1956. 6. The High Court recorded a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, all suits of civil nature are maintainable unless barred either by an express provision or by implication of law. In the case on hand, when a specific stand is taken that in view of the provisions of Companies Act the suit is not maintainable, the checkered history between the contesting parties and the chronology of the actions taken by the respondents , in our opinion, do not decide the maintainability of the suit. We find the conclusion recorded by the High Court to be highly unsatisfactory. 8. On the question whether the plaintiffs have a prima facie case, the High Court recorded a cryptic conclusion without recording any reasons (at para 7.2) that they have a strong prima facie case. On the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of this Court, and further that, any business transacted at the said meeting and/or any outcome thereof shall be subject to further orders that may be passed by this Court. 10. Hence, these appeals by special leave. 11. We are of the opinion that the directions in paras 7.2 and 7.3 are inconsistent with the directions in para 7.4. Apart from that, the fact that the orders of status quo were granted by the Chamber Judge during vacation, which have been continued from time to time without further consideration regarding the tenability of such orders, is no ground for continuing such orders. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order. Having regard to the various contentions raised by the parties, it is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates