‘LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, ETC.
“ESCORTS LTD. & OTHERS, ETC, | April 30, 1984
[S. “Murtaza FAZAL ALL, AMARENDRA NATH SEN AND v.
BALAKRISHNA Erapl, JJ: ] oe oe ae -Companies Act 1956 ss- 166 and 284 Annual general meeting “holding of:
notice, seeking removal of direétors of conipany—High Court granting stay injunction | in writ petition interference by Supreme Court.
oO “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 /injunee tion passed by the Single Judge af the. High Court, prohibiting any action
‘being taken on’ the basis of the requisition put in by LLC. [644E]
. "2, All appropriate proceedings will be.taken in accordance with law’ on 1 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 1 requisition without obtaining prior. directions ~ "from. this Court. . : [ss4ro] oo
* 5. 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.” {6 446]
1984." "From the jndgmant and Order dated 4/15. 3.1984 of the High
| Court of Bombay in W.P. No. 3063/1983. eR And |
Civil Appeat NO. 2318 of 1984.
vars ery ii
“From. the Judgment and. order dated 14/153. 1983 . of the
Bombay igh Court i in W.P. No. 3068/1983. ooo
Ca. APPELLATE - JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2317 of
643°
Has
SUPREME: COURT REPORTS - [1984] 3 S.C.R. * ° .
With Transfer Petition - (Civil) No. 190. of ‘1984,
For the Potitoner/Appellant:
K. Parasan, Attorney General; ‘Milan K. Banerjee, “Addl es - Solicitor General, SA, Shroff, -Miss A Subhashini and Dr. V.Gori — — Shanker, 7 . Bo, .
*
“For thé ¢ Respondent
- N.. 4. Palkhivala, Soli J. “Sorabjee, PLR. 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 Oider of the Court was delivered by FAZAL Aus, J.
‘In SLP () Nos. sooalea & sah,
We have heard learned Attomey General for the petitioners
: ‘and Mr. Palkhivala, learned counsel for respondents at length. -
Special Teave eranted. 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.L.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 torany resolution the company may_ pass at the extra-ordinary general meeting to de 7 held in consequence of the requisition without obtaining prior direc-
" tions 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 willbe kept pending forthe limited purpose to enable counsel to move this Court for directions as indicated above. In computing the time for taking steps pursuant to the requisititon, 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, .
"they
=
»
_b. I. Cv. ESCORTS (Fazal Ali, 4) SO 9643
Transfer Petition © 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 Ith June, 1984 and he assures this Court that his clients will fully co-qperate 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 présent which is accordingly distnissed. :
OMAK 0 Writ Petition allowed’ ; mo, Transfer Petition dismissed,