9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (2) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate limited company. The petitioner has been holding 490 equity shares in the respondent-company of Rs. 1,000 each. It is averred that the managements of the petitioner and the respondent were more or less in the same hands. The petitioner was controlled by the group of Shri Pavittar Singh till October 27, 1979, when Col. P. S. Dhillon (through whom the present petition has been filed) was elected to that office. The management of the respondent is still in the hands of Shri Pavittar Singh and his group. It is further averred that when the group of Shri Pavittar Singh was in power, that group sold the said shares to Shri Pavittar Singh, his sons and his brother-in-law. The case of the petitioner is that the shares belonging to the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the defaulting shareholders for April 21, 1982. Col. Dhillon instituted a suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Jullundur, for a permanent injunction restraining the requisitionists from holding the proposed meeting on that date and for declaration that the requisition notice of the meeting was illegal, void, ultra vires and bad in the eye of law. An application under O. 39, rule 1 and 2 and section 151, CPC, was also filed along with the suit on April 19, 1982, for an ad interim injunction. The court issued the injunction order against the requisitionists restraining them from holding the proposed meeting on April 21, 1982, and directed them to appear in the court on April 29, 1982, to contest the application. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be carried out. The requisitionists, therefore, called a meeting on April 21, 1982, wherein Col. Dhillon was removed from the managing directorship of the company. No injunction order of the court was served upon the requisitionists on April 21, 1982, On the other hand, it was served on April 22, 1982. The filing of the contempt petition has been admitted but it is alleged that it has been filed mala fide . It is further averred that no money was due from the requisitionists on account of call money and, therefore, the meeting called by them cannot be said to be illegal. The main question that arises for determination is as to whether any valid meeting was held on April 21, 1982, by the shareholders of the petitioner in which a resolu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
