9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the election of directors due to the absence of an explanatory statement. 2. Validity of the election due to the non-furnishing of candidates' names along with the notice. 3. Compliance with Section 257(1A) of the Companies Act. 4. Jurisdiction of the court to convene an extraordinary general body meeting. 5. Whether the meeting was held as notified. Detailed Analysis: Point No. 1: Explanatory Statement The petitioner contended that the notice was improper as it lacked an explanatory statement as required under Section 173(2) of the Companies Act. The court noted that if an explanatory statement is required and not annexed, the meeting is a nullity, referencing Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. v. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. [1971] 41 Comp Cas 377. However, the court had previously directed the meeting and approved the notice, concluding that Section 173 does not apply due to clause 8 of the company's articles of association. The notice contained all material facts about the business to be transacted, and the meeting was convened by a court-appointed chairman, not the company. The court cited Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd. [1986] 59 Comp Cas 548 and Sitaram Jaipuria v. Banwarilal Jaipuria [1972] AIR 1972 Cal 105, emphasizing a commonsense approach to the notice and explanatory statement. Thus, the contention was dismissed. Points Nos. 2 & 3: Names of Candidates and Section 257(1A) The petitioner argued that the names of the candidates were not furnished along with the notice, violating Section 257(1A) of the Companies Act. The court found no provision in the Companies Act or the company's articles requiring pre-notification of candidates' names. Section 257(1A) applies only to public companies or private companies that are subsidiaries of public companies. The court referenced A. Ramaiya, 11th edition, page 783, asserting that Section 257(1A) is a continuation of Section 257(1) and does not apply to private companies like the one in question. Therefore, the contention was dismissed. Point No. 4: Court's Jurisdiction The petitioner claimed that the court lacked jurisdiction to convene an extraordinary general meeting, citing Section 186 of the Companies Act. The court disagreed, referencing Dinekar Rai D. Desai v. R.P. Bhasin [1986] 60 Comp Cas 14 and Indian Hardware Industries Ltd. v. S.K. Gupta [1981] 51 Comp Cas 51. The court held that it retained supervisory powers under Section 392 of the Companies Act to enforce the revival scheme. The court had previously ordered similar meetings and was actively supervising the company's revival scheme. Thus, the court had jurisdiction to convene the meeting. Point No. 5: Meeting Held as Notified The petitioner contended that the meeting was not held as notified. The court found no merit in this contention, noting that the meeting was indeed held as per the notification. This point was not argued further during the hearing, and the records confirmed the meeting's occurrence as scheduled. Conclusion: The court dismissed the application, finding no merit in the petitioner's contentions regarding the explanatory statement, the non-furnishing of candidates' names, compliance with Section 257(1A), the court's jurisdiction, and the validity of the meeting. The newly elected board of directors had already taken charge per the court's directions.
|
