1. In view of the issues involved in all these Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same, all the Civil Revision Petitions were taken up together and the common order is passed.

2. Background facts in brief are as follows:

2(1). The second respondent bank in C.R.P.(MD)No.1792 and 1802 to 1805 of 2012 is a scheduled commercial bank, established in 1921. In 1994, holders of equity shares of the bank constituting 67% of the total equity capital executed share transfer deeds in favour of seven different entities after receiving the consideration thereof. In relation to these transfers, several suits and company petitions came to be filed in different Courts and Tribunals by various parties. Majority of these proceedings commenced are alleged to be vexatious and prompted by vested interests who have been attempting to exploit the position relating to the share transfers, to obtain control over the bank.

2(b). The first respondent filed a suit in C.O.S.No.233 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Thoothukudi, for permanent injunction. He is one among the shareholders of the bank. He also filed I.A.No.991 of 2012 under Order 39, Rule 1 C.P.C. praying for interim injunction against the respondents 2 to 8. On 10.08.2012, the learned Sub Judge, Thoothukudi, has granted interim injunction.

2(c). The short facts in the plaint and the affidavit filed by the first defendant in O.S.No.233 of 2012 are to the effect that in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.No.3379 of 2003, the Directors who are 2 to 8 respondents herein have not vacated the office on 30.09.2010 and by stating various reasons they are sticking to the posts. It is profitable to extract the operative portions of the Division Bench judgment which go thus:

"14.) The provision for an additional director is one which is meant to enable the companies to have the benefit of the services of a person, who otherwise is suitable for serving on the Board, and whose presence in the Board is desirable in the interests of the company till up to time the next Annual General Meeting is held. That provision is not meant to enable the company to keep on its Board a person as additional director for an indefinite period of time by not holding the Annual General Meeting. Section 260 of the Act, therefore, must necessarily be read with Section 166 of the Act which stipulates that the Annual General Meeting be held every year and not more than fifteen months shall elapse between the date of one Annual General Meeting and the next.

15.) A Division Bench of this Court comprising of Rajmannar, C.J., and Venkatarama Aiyar, J., as he then was in the case of A.Ananthalakshmi ammal vs. The Indian Trade and Investments Ltd., reported in AIR 1953 Mad 467 with Venkatarama Aiyar, speaking for the Bench, after a review of the English cases, held that directors of a company who are due to retire at an Annual General Meeting vacate their office on the last date on which the Annual General Meeting should have been held though the meeting in fact was not held.

16.) The Bombay High Court in the case of Krishna Prasad Pilani vs. Colaba Land & Mills, Jwaladutt Co., Ltd., AIR 1960 Bom 312, a case which was argued by a galaxy of Company lawyers, considered the question as to whether the elected lawyers, considered the question as to whether the elected Directors can continue after the expiry of the statutory period laid down for calling of the Annual General Meeting, and held that "we find little difficulty in reading the conclusion that a Director vacates his office at the latest on the last day on which an Annual General Meeting could have been called as required by Section 166."

17.) The Court also considered in that case tenure of Additional Directors and held that all directors - whether elected or co-opted vacate office on the last date on which the Annual General Meeting should have been called U/s.166. The Court rejected the contention that despite the benc