9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (7) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... side before that date. Affidavit in rejoinder to be filed and a copy thereof to be given to the other side on or before August 6, 1982. The applicant prays for ad interim relief restraining the petitioner-company and the opponents from holding a requisitioned meeting of the company today. Pursuant to a requisition received from some of the shareholders for calling an extraordinary general meeting of the company, a notice dated June 11, 1982, has been sent by the company to its shareholders including the applicant for holding an extraordinary general meeting today. The meeting which is proposed to be called is for the purpose of passing the following resolution : "Resolved that the company re-negotiate with Brooke Bond India Ltd. and/or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 391 there are specific provisions for the manner of ascertaining the wishes of the creditors and the members of the company whenever a scheme of compromise or arrangement is proposed under the provisions of section 391. If a majority in number representing three-fourths in value of the creditors or members whose meeting is called, vote for the scheme, it comes up for sanction before the court. In the present case the scheme has been approved as prescribed under section 391 by the members and creditors of the company and it has come up for sanction. Can the shareholders now compel the company to resile from the scheme ? The scheme proposed under section 391 should be for the benefit of the shareholders as also for the benefit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sitioned is legal or illegal. The ratio of these authorities will not apply to the present case because this is not a case where the board of directors have refused to call a requisitioned meeting. In fact the meeting has been called pursuant to the requisition which was received by the board of directors and it is scheduled for today. Mr. Chinoy also drew my attention to a decision of this court in Laljibhai C. Kapadia v. Lalji B. Desai [1973] 43 Comp. Cas. 17; [1972] 74 Bom. LR 85, which, inter alia , dealt with the question of the validity of a requisition when the explanatory statement accompanying the requisition was lacking in material particulars. I am not concerned with this aspect of the matter at present. I am prima facie of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
