Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Jyoti Limited & Others Versus Bharat J. Patel & Others

2015 (5) TMI 282 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Interim application seeking certain interim relief - Not to convey or hold or attend any meeting of Board of Directors, from voting threat , to pass any resolution by Circulation - The High Court recorded a conclusion that the respondents would not be able to maintain the proceedings before the Company Law Board - Held that:- The maintainability of a suit is question of law. Though, by virtue of declaration under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, all suits of civil nature are maint .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 para 7.4 held that in view of the fact that from 31.12.2014 orders of status quo existed, the same is directed to be continued to be considered on the next .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d to the various contentions raised by the parties, it is better that the appeal before the High Court itself is disposed of on merits expeditiously. - Decided in favour of appellant. - CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2935-36 of 2015 - Dated:- 17-3-2015 - J. Chelameswar and R.K. Agrawal, JJ. For The Petitioner : MR. MOHIT D. RAM For The Respondent : MS. BINA GUPTA JUDGMENT Chelameswar, J. 1. Leave granted. Heard Mr. Dushyant Dave and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion 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 orde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ursuant to the requisition of the plaintiffs dated 18th December, 2014 (Exh. H and I) 4. From the order dated 29.10.2014 passed by the trial Court on the said application, it appears that the respondents sought an order restraining the appellants herein from attending and voting at a meeting of the Board of Directors scheduled on 13th October, 2014. The trial Court declined to grant the interim relief as sought for. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: …….. Therefor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

at the plaintiff has challenged the issuance of the notice 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 h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ents, including the one that the voting right is already suspended by the Company qua the said share holding, asking the plaintiffs to move the Company Law Board would be meaningless because their (plaintiffs ) lack of voting right as contended by the respondents would make the proceedings before the Company Law Board as well, not maintainable. This is over and above an additional aspect that, the provision of Section 186 of the Companies Act, prima facie cannot be read to be meant for the circu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cord, the suit in question cannot be termed to be not maintainable. The suit is therefore held to be maintainable. The contention of the respondents in this regard is rejected. 7. The maintainability of a suit is question of law. Though, by virtue of declaration under Section 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 t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ma 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: 9. The High Court at para 7.4 held that in view of the fact that from 31.12.2014 orders of status quo existed, the same is directed to be continued to be considered on the next date of hearing, i.e. 16.03.2015. In the interregnum, the High Court directed the appellants herein as follows: 7.2 The respondents/original defendants, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version