The legal issue for decision before this Court is, whether a civil suit to declare the appointment/co-option of some of the defendants/Directors of a Private Limited Company as illegal and void; to grant permanent injunction restraining them from any manner functioning as Directors of that company; further injunction restraining the said company from conducting any Extraordinary General Body Meeting/Annual General Body is maintainable in a civil court, in the light of Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013?

2. M/s Standard Fireworks Private Limited, which is the epicentre of the dispute, is a Private Limited Company controlled by three families namely, Yennarkay Ravindran Family (34% shares), Arunachalam Nadar of Pioneer Group (33% shares) and Chelladurai Nadar of Bell Group (33% shares). The 34% shares in M/s Standard Fireworks Private Limited Company held by Yennarkay Ravindran family are with three companies run by that family. Those three companies are M/s Rajarathnam Matches Private Limited, M/s Chiranjeevi Rathnam Matches Private Limited and M/s Selvarathnam Matches Private Limited. Each of these three companies hold 11.09% of share in M/s Standard Fireworks Private Limited. While so, due to heavy pressure and burden of work, Yennarkay R. Ravindran and Mrs. Thilagavathi/Directors of M/s Rajarathnam Matches Private Limited resigned from their directorship in the year 2003 and co-opted the plaintiffs, who are the employees of M/s Rajarathnam Matches Private Limited, as the Directors of the Company.

3. The plaint averment is that, Mr. Yennarkay Selvarathnam/second defendant requested calling for Extraordinary General Body Meeting (EGM), removal of directors, payment of dividend and external audit for the machinery investment. Those requests were considered and declined in the Board of Directors Meeting held on 31.08.2015 for the reasons stated. Since he was not able to succeed with his attempts, he wanted to remove the Directors, who are not accepting his demands. To achieve his illegal object, he has decided to capture all these three Match Industries viz. M/s Rajarathnam Matches Private Limited, M/s Chiranjeevi Rathnam Matches Private Limited and M/s Selvarathnam Matches Private Limited, held by his family members, which possess 33.27% of shares in the 9th defendant company namely, M/s Standard Fireworks Private Limited.

4. In order to hold the 11.09% of shares in M/s Standard Fireworks Private Limited, the second defendant has manipulated the signature of the first plaintiff and had created records as if the 5th defendant-Mrs. Pallavi has been inducted as Director of the first defendant company namely, M/s Rajarathnam Matches Private Limited. The fifth defendant, in turn, has co-opted six persons as the Directors of the first defendant company. Expressing their apprehension that with manipulated records, If any Extraordinary General Body Meeting/Annual General Body is called in M/s Standard Fireworks Private Limited, either the representative of the 2nd defendant or the proxy, will be selected by Board of Directors.

5. Hence, the suit for declaration declaring the appointment/co-option of the defendants 2 to 8 as Directors of the first defendant company (M/s Rajarathnam Matches Private Limited) as illegal and void for violating the mandatory legal procedures and the procedures of the said company. To grant permanent injunction restraining them from any manner functioning as Directors of that Company and interfere with the functioning of the plaintiffs and further injunction restraining the 9th defendant company (M/s Standard Fireworks Private Limited) from conducting any Extraordinary General Body Meeting/Annual General Body Meeting.

6. The trial Court has taken the plaint on file assigned suit number as O.S.No.188/2016 and has summoned the defendants. On receipt of the suit summons, the revision petitioners herein/defendants 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 in the suit in O.S. No. 188/2016 have filed an application in I.A.No.1015 of