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

2020 (2) TMI 1327

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndings on this factual controversy. We found that there is a prima facie evidence on record indicating that the notices of both the meetings were given to the petitioner. Hence, we are not inclined to grant interim relief as claimed by the petitioner. We are also of the considered opinion that if we are to allow interim relief as claimed by the petitioner, then it will be nothing but allowing his prayers in the main petition itself. Such procedure is not contemplated, while considering interim application. The respondent nos. I to 6 are directed to file affidavit-in-reply to main petition within three weeks by giving copies thereof to the petitioner and the petitioner to file rejoinder thereto within two weeks thereafter. Main Petition t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... espondents are prejudicial to his interest in the company and are oppressive in nature of his rights in the company. 3. Pending main petition, he filed CA No.131/KB/2020 for interim relief claiming that appointment of respondent nos. 4 to 6 as the directors be cancelled and set aside. It may be declared that he is still the director of the company because resolution passed removing him from the Board of Directors in EoGM dated 04.01.2020 is bad in law. 4. We have perused the petition. We find that total 36 prayers are made in claiming various relief and the same are reproduced as interim petition also. On 24.01.2020, the petition came up before us for hearing. Number of Counsels appeared for the petitioners and for the respondents. Ld .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in respondent no. 1 company whereas respondent no.2 holds 87.5% shares in respondent no. 1 company. The petitioner alleged that he did not have notice of AGM dated 24.09.2019 and notice of Extra Ordinary General Meeting dated 04.01.2020. According to him, the resolution passed in those meetings about the appointment of respondent nos. 4 to 6 as the directors of the company and removing him from the post of Director are bad in law. Ld. Sr. Counsel, Mr. Siddhartha Mitra for the petitioner submitted that it is settled law that in the resolution passed in such meetings without notice to even one director is void. He relied on rulings reported in AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2389 in case of Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta-vs- The Union of India. He submitted .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... get disposed off without hearing. He relied on the ruling reported in (2009) 17 Supreme Court Cases 555 in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Ors. -vs- Sandeep Kumar Balmiki Ors. and (2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 65 in case of Union of India Others -vs- Modiluft Ltd. 12. Ld. Sr. Counsel for R-4 to R-6 submitted that whether the petitioner was served with the notice of AGM and EoGM is essentially the question of fact and no findings can be recorded thereon by this Tribunal, unless this Tribunal hears the main petition and considers the evidence that will be produced by the parties on record. He would further submit that in fact, evidence on record would indicate the petitioner had the notice of both AGM EoGM. The resolution appoin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat the notices of both the meetings were given to the petitioner. Hence, we are not inclined to grant interim relief as claimed by the petitioner. We are also of the considered opinion that if we are to allow interim relief as claimed by the petitioner, then it will be nothing but allowing his prayers in the main petition itself. Such procedure is not contemplated, while considering interim application. For the above reasons, we pass the following order: ORDER CA 131/KB/2020 filed by the petitioner for interim relief stands rejected. We direct the respondent nos. I to 6 to file affidavit-in-reply to main petition within three weeks by giving copies thereof to the petitioner and the petitioner to file rejoinder thereto within two w .....

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