9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of proxies dated March 13, 1986. 2. Precedence of proxy forms based on date. 3. Consideration and disposal of plaintiff's objections by the chairman. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Proxies Dated March 13, 1986: The plaintiff questioned whether the proxies dated March 13, 1986, were validly executed and could have been physically delivered to Dr. Raja Ram Jaipuria, Sita Ram Singhania, or J. Chaudhary on the same day before 11:30 a.m. The court noted that it is common practice for shareholders to execute proxies in blank and deliver them to interested parties who then fill in the details and submit them before the meeting. The court found no irregularity in this practice and stated that the plaintiff, who also collected proxies in a similar manner for his group, could not object to this practice. The court concluded that the proxies dated March 13, 1986, were valid and there was no force in the plaintiff's contention. 2. Precedence of Proxy Forms Based on Date: The court addressed whether the proxy form bearing the date given by the shareholders would prevail over a proxy with a later date mentioned by the nominee. It reaffirmed the settled proposition that the proxy bearing the latest date supersedes earlier ones, provided they are complete in all respects. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the date of the shareholder's signature should be considered the filing date, stating that once a blank proxy is handed over, the appointee is authorized to fill in the details, including the date. The court found no substance in the plaintiff's submission and noted that there was no complaint from any shareholder about their proxies being misused. 3. Consideration and Disposal of Plaintiff's Objections by the Chairman: The plaintiff claimed that his objections to the proxies, raised in letters dated March 15, 1986, and April 2, 1986, were not considered by the chairman. The court referred to a letter from the chairman dated April 4, 1986, which stated that the objections were handed over to the scrutinisers, discussed, and found to be without substance. The chairman's decision, as per article 95 of the company's articles of association, is binding and deemed valid. The court found no evidence of non-application of mind by the chairman and cited a similar case (Wall v. Exchange Investment Corporation Ltd.) to support its decision. The court concluded that the objections were duly considered and dismissed the plaintiff's argument. Conclusion: The court found that the plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case for an injunction. It emphasized that the newly elected board of directors should be allowed to perform their duties, as an injunction would halt the company's business, resulting in significant loss. The plaintiff's application for interim relief was dismissed, with the court noting that the proxies would be scrutinized during the trial and that the plaintiff would not suffer irreparable injury. The balance of convenience favored the defendants, and the court's observations would not affect the merits of the case.
|
