9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... follows: a) To restrain the Respondents 2 to 4 from convening any Board Meetings or General Meetings without the approval of this Hon'ble Bench; b) For an interim injunction restraining the holding of purported EGM proposed to be held on 12.11.2012, based on the alleged requisitions and notice issued by the 3rd respondent; and consequently, restrain any General Meetings of the Company from being held without the approval of the Hon'ble Bench; and c) For an injunction restraining the Board from making any alteration to the Board of Directors, without the permission of this Hon'ble Bench. Company Appeal No.15/2012 2 d) For an injunction restraining the Respondents from giving effect to or in any manner acting upon th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is oppressive to members of the company and that is why certain interim reliefs were sought for by appellants. 5. Drawing our attention to various alleged discrepancies in the manner in which the Board meeting was held, notices were issued etc., it was strongly argued that all these were done to deliberately evade participation of certain individuals and hence, the matter comes squarely under Section 397 of the Act. It is also vehemently argued that none of these facts were considered in the impugned order and it is per se illegal and is liable to be set aside, it is strongly. 6. Sri. Badri Natarajan and Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel for the respondents vehementally argued that this appeal is not maintainable. As per Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order, it can be seen that the Board has merely narrated the contentions taken up by the appellants. But, there is absolutely nothing in the impugned order to show whether the contentions raised by the appellants are sustainable or not, at least prima facie. 9. It is not considered by the Board whether appellants made out a prima facie case for granting the interim reliefs which are sought for. No reasons are also assigned for refusing the interim reliefs sought for by the appellants. The Board ought to have stated in the impugned order why the relief is refused. It is needless to say that an order passed without assigning any reasons is opposed to the principles of natural justice and is unsustainable in law. 10. Even whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for by a party is legal or sustainable in law. Hence, appeal is maintainable and the order under challenge is unsustainable also. 13. It is revealed from the impugned order that the respondents were granted four weeks time to file counter to the petition and even before filing the counter, time was also given for filing rejoinder and the matter was adjourned. It is posed before the Board to today. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that the counter is being prepared and it would be filed, shortly. Even if counter is filed, depending upon the nature of the counter the appellants may also file rejoinder. 14. It is thus clear from the submissions made before this Court that respondents have some serious objections to raise even ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
