1924 (4) TMI 2

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h was joined as defendant No. 6 on the ground that one of the plaintiffs has been prevented from acting as Director. The facts shortly stated are that at a meeting of the share-holders of the Company which was held on the 32nd Ashar 1329 the plaintiff No. 2 and defendants 1, 2 and 3 were elected Directors. The meeting was subsequently adjourned and the adjourned meeting was held on the 7th Sraban .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . 2 and 3 have appealed to this Court and on their behalf the contention has been made that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit as this. It was also argued that having regard to the facts stated in the judgment of the Court of appeal below the Court ought not to interfere in this matter. 3. With regard to the second question we have only to observe that the learned Judge .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on behalf of the appellants that although there is no direct provision in the law that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit it is a matter of internal management of a Company with which the Court has no jurisdiction to interfere and he cites in support of his contention the case of Mozley v. Alston 1 Phillips 790, and certain other cases following that case, In that case, h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X