SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1982 Supreme(Cal) 223

High Court Of Calcutta
Padma Khastgir
JOGINDER SINGH PALTA - Appellant
Versus
TIME TRAVELS PVT.LTD - Respondent
Suit 4480  Of  1982
Decided On : 06/22/1982

Advocates Appeared:
HIRAK MITRA, RATHIN NAG, SUJIT KUMAR SINHA

A company may exempt itself from the requirement to provide an explanatory statement under Section 173 of the Companies Act by providing otherwise in its articles of association.

Headnote:

COMPANY LAW - REMOVAL OF MANAGING DIRECTOR - VALIDITY - ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION - EXEMPTION FROM SECTION 173 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 - INTERPRETATION - INJUNCTION - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Joginder Singh Palta, filed a suit seeking an injunction to restrain the defendants from giving effect to a resolution passed at an extraordinary general meeting of the company removing him as the managing director. The petitioner claimed that he was not given proper notice of the meeting and that the resolution was passed in violation of the Companies Act and the articles of association of the company.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was not a member of the company and therefore not entitled to notice under Section 173 of the Companies Act. The court also found that the petitioner had been duly served with notice of the meeting and that the explanatory statement given by the company was sufficient.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to notice of the meeting under Section 173 of the Companies Act? 2. Whether the explanatory statement given by the company was sufficient? 3. Whether the resolution passed at the meeting was valid? 4. Whether the court should grant an injunction to restrain the defendants from giving effect to the resolution?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to notice under Section 173 of the Companies Act because he was not a member of the company. 2. The court held that the explanatory statement given by the company was sufficient because the articles of association of the company exempted the company from the requirement to provide an explanatory statement under Section 173. 3. The court held that the resolution passed at the meeting was valid because the company had complied with the requirements of the Companies Act and the articles of association of the company. 4. The court held that it should not grant an injunction to restrain the defendants from giving effect to the resolution because the balance of convenience favored the company.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application for an injunction.

PADMA KHASTGIR, J.

( 1 ) THIS application had been made by Joginder Singh Palta for an order of injunction restraining the defendants. Time Travels P. Ltd, and others, from in any manner giving effect or further effect to the resolution, dated May 14,1982, restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner with the right of the petitioner to act as the managing director of defendant No. 1 and for other consequential reliefs.

( 2 ) IT was the petitioner's case that at all material times he was and still is the managing director of defendant No. 1. The company was incorporated on or about March 8, 1978, under the Companies Act, 1956, as a private company limited by shares. Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 at all material times were and still are directors of defendant No. 1 and the petitioner along with the said directors constituted the board of directors of defendant No. I. The petitioner and defendants Nos. 2 and 4 were the first named directors of the company in its articles of association. According to the petitioner, he was duly appointed as the managing director of defendant No. 1 by the board of directors for the initial period of three years with effect from June 1, 1978, and subsequently from June 1,1981, he was duly appointed as the managing director of the defendant on various terms and conditions as set out in paragraph 9 of the petition. Since June 1,1976, the petitioner has been duly acting as the managing director of defendant No. 1 and performing his duties as such. It was the petitioner's case as made out in the petition, that on May 23, 1982, the petitioner for the first time came to know from an advertisement caused to be published by the defendants in an issue of Amrita Bazar Patrika, dated May 16, 1982, that a resolution had been passed at an extraordinary, general meeting of defendant No. 1, dated May 14, 1982, for the removal of the petitioner as director of defendant No. 1. The petitioner denied and disputed the factum, validity and the genuineness of the said resolution passed at the extraordinary general meeting inasmuch as, according to the petitioner, no board meeting was held for the purpose of considering the said purported resolution or convening the extraordinary general meeting of defendant No. 1. According to him no notice of the said resolution or of the said extraordinary general meeting was given by defendant No. 1 to him or by any other defendants. According to him, no special notice had been served on the petitioner and, under the circumstances, he was not given any opportunity to be heard on the proposed resolution or at the meeting. Under those circumstances, the petitioner had no opportunity to make any representation with regard to the said proposed resolution for his removal as the director of defendant No. 1. It was the petitioner's further case that such resolution had not been notified to the Registrar of Companies removing the petitioner from the directorship of defendant No. 1.

( 3 ) MR. Sujit Sinha, Barrister-at-Law, appeared in support of this application and submitted that the removal of his client as a director was illegal, void and of no effect. First of all, on the ground that no notice of the said resolution or of convening of the said extraordinary general meeting was given, no board meeting was ever held for the purpose of considering the said resolution. No special notice had been given to the petitioner nor any particulars were given to the petitioner to make any representation in respect of the said resolution for his removal as a director of defendant No. 1. The meeting held and the resolutions passed on May 14, 1982, were contrary to and in violation of the provisions of the Companies Act as also the articles of association of defendant No. 1. According to the petitioner, no effect whatsoever had been given to the resolution inasmuch as the petitioner had been attending the office of defendant No. 1 and performing and/or discharging his duties as the managing di














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top