9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the defence of a company in litigation should be conducted by its elected board of directors or by a special officer. Analysis: The primary issue in this appeal revolved around the question of who should conduct the defence of a company in litigation - whether it should be the elected board of directors or a special officer. The case stemmed from a suit filed by a shareholder against a company, where disputes had arisen between shareholders leading to the supersession of the board of directors. A special officer was appointed to handle the company's affairs until a new board was constituted. The respondent, a shareholder and former managing director, challenged the constitution of the new board and the authority of the special officer. The respondent contended that the special officer's tenure had ended with the dismissal of the appeal, and the board was improperly constituted as one member was deceased and another was not a valid shareholder. The respondent argued that the company's interest was not adequately represented, and the appeal was a delay tactic. The appellants, majority shareholders, sought to conduct the company's defence, citing legal precedents allowing shareholders to step in when directors act against the company's interest. The court analyzed relevant legal provisions and precedents, emphasizing the importance of ensuring the company's rights to a proper defence. Referring to past judgments, the court concluded that in cases where directors act against the company's interest, shareholders can intervene to protect the company. The court found that no valid defence was in place for the company in the ongoing suit, leading to the decision to allow the appeal, setting aside the previous order, and granting the appellants the right to conduct the company's defence in the suit. In a comprehensive analysis, the court addressed the appealability of the order, the validity of the board's constitution, the role of the special officer, and the rights of majority shareholders to defend the company's interests in litigation. The judgment highlighted the need to safeguard the company's rights and ensure proper representation in legal proceedings, ultimately allowing the appeal and granting the appellants the authority to conduct the company's defence in the ongoing suit.
|
