9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act at the instance of one of the shareholders, we set aside the last portion, paragraph 18 of the impugned order dated 24-8-1999, with liberty to eligible shareholders of the first defendant-company to take such steps so that the general body meeting of the first defendant-company in which the general body may take appropriate decision with regard to election of managing director of the company. The appeal is allowed in part and stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. - O.S.A. NO. 165 OF 1999 † AND C.M.P. NOS. 14633 OF 1999 AND 16767 OF 2000 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2008 - S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA AND M. VENUGOPAL, JJ Arvind P. Datar for the Appellant. C.R. Prasanan for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the plaintiff praying for interim injunction restraining the second defendant from holding out as managing director of the first respondent-company and also from interfering with the affairs of the said company. No order was passed to the extent of prayer made, but the second defendant was asked to convene a general body meeting. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants referred to the impugned order dated 24-8-1999, and submitted that learned judge having accepted that the induction of the second defendant, who has not been co-opted, as director/managing director of the company, being illegal, should have passed order of interim injunction restraining the said second defendant from holding out as managing director of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase made out by plaintiff, taking into consideration the balance of convenience, refused to pass order of interim injunction as was sought for. It was noticed and as accepted during argument that plaintiffs and defendants are blood relations. Father and one of the sons were on one side as plaintiffs. On the other hand, mother, daughters and the other son are the defendants. Father and elder son were opposing induction of the second defendant, who is the second son/younger brother of the plaintiff. The mother and daughters/sisters were supporting the other son/brother, i.e., the second defendant. It is informed that one of the plaintiff, i.e., father, has now again taken side of the second defendant. Taking into consideration that the se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
