Case Law Companies Act Life Insurance Corporation of India Etc Vs Escorts Ltd And Others Etc

Case Law Companies Act

Life Insurance Corporation of India Etc

Vs Escorts Ltd And Others Etc

 

DATE OF JUDGMENT-30/04/1984

BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA

BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J) ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)

CITATION: 1984 SCR  (3) 643  1984 SCALE  (1)821

ACT: Companies Act  1956 ss.  166  and 284  Annual  general meeting holding  of notice  seeking removal  of directors of company-High  Court   granting  stay   injunction  in   writ petition-interference by Supreme Court.

HEADNOTE: The  appellants   in  their   appeals  to this  Court challenged the  order of  a Single  Judge of  the High Court admitting the  writ petition of the first respondent company and  staying  of  the  notice  seeking  removal  of  certain Directors of the company. ^ HELD: 1.  There will  be an order vacating the order of stay/injunction passed  by the  Single  judge  of  the  High Court, prohibiting  any action  being taken  on the basis of the requisition put in by L.I.C. [644E] 2. All   appropriate  proceedings  will  be  taken  in accordance  with  law  on  the  basis  of  the  requisition. However, no  effect should  be given  to any  resolution the company may pass at the extra-ordinary general meeting to be held in  consequence of  the requisition  without  obtaining prior directing from this Court. [644F-G] 3. The  pendency of  these cases in this Court will not stand in  the way  of holding  the annual general meeting of the company in the normal course. [644G]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2317 of 1984. From the  Judgment and  Order dated 14/15.3.1984 of the High Court of Bombay in W.P. No. 3063/1983. And Civil Appeal No. 2318 of 1984. From the  Judgment and  order dated 14/15.3.1983 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 3063/1983. 644 With Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 190 of 1984. For the Petitioner/Appellant: K. Parasan,  Attorney General, Milan K. Banerjee, Addl. Solicitor General, S.A. Shroff, Miss A Subhashini and Dr. V. Gori Shanker, For the Respondents: N. A. Palkhivala, Soli J. Sorabjee, P. R. Mridul, A. B. Divan, Dr.  L.M. Singhvi,  K K.  Venugopal, J.B. Dadachanji, Rajinder Narain,  Harish Salve,  B.S. Bantia,  K.S.  Cooper, Bedabratta Barua,  R. Nariman,  T.M. Ansari,  P.K. Ram, Mrs. A.K. Verma and D.N. Mishra. The Order of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. In SLP (C) Nos. 5392/84 & 5412/84. We have   heard  learned   Attorney  General  for  the petitioners  and   Mr.  Palkhivala,   learned  counsel   for respondents at length. Special leave  granted.

There will be an order vacating the order  of stay/injunction  passed by the Single Judge of the High  Court, prohibiting  any action  being taken on the basis of the requisition put in by L.I.C. We direct that all appropriate proceedings will be taken in accordance with law on the  basis of  the requisition. However, no effect should be given  to any  resolution the  company may  pass  at  the extra-ordinary general  meeting to be held in consequence of the requisition without obtaining prior directions from this Court. The  Pendency of  these cases  in this Court will not stand in  the way  of holding  the annual general meeting of the company in the normal course. These appeals are disposed of except  that they  will be  kept pending  for the limited purpose to  enable counsel to move this Court for directions as indicated  above. In  computing the time for taking steps pursuant to  the requisition,  the period  from the  date of requisition till  this day  will  be  excluded  in  view  of interim stay/injunction granted by the High Court. The prayer for amendment of the cause title is allowed.

645 Transfer Petition (C) No. 190 of 1984. Mr.  Palkhivala,  learned  counsel  on  behalf  of  the respondents states  that matter  is being  listed before the High Court  for final  hearing on  11th June,  1984  and  he assures this Court that his clients will fully co-operate so that the  case can  be heard  and finally disposed of in the High Court  by the  end of  June, 1984.  We request the High Court to  dispose of  the matter finally as expeditiously as possible. In view of this, the learned Attorney General does not press  the Transfer  Petition for  the present  which is accordingly dismissed. N.V.K.

Writ Petition allowed Transfer Petition dismissed. 646

Leave a Comment