TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the civil court or company court had inherent jurisdiction under Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, read with Section 643 of the Companies Act, 1956, to appoint an independent chairman or otherwise direct the conduct of an already convened company meeting contrary to the articles of association and the statutory scheme; (ii) Whether the notice of motion seeking interim reliefs, including a declaration disabling certain directors from chairing the meeting and appointment of a receiver for the company's records, was maintainable and capable of being granted.
Issue (i): Whether the civil court or company court had inherent jurisdiction under Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, read with Section 643 of the Companies Act, 1956, to appoint an independent chairman or otherwise direct the conduct of an already convened company meeting contrary to the articles of association and the statutory scheme.
Analysis: The Companies Act, 1956 contains express provisions for convening and regulating company meetings in specified situations, and the court's power to interfere is confined to the cases where the statute so authorises. Rule 9 is only an ancillary source of procedural power and cannot be used to create a substantive jurisdiction that the Act does not confer. Once a meeting is duly convened under the Act and the articles, the court cannot override the internal management of the company by appointing a chairman or issuing directions inconsistent with the articles, save where a specific statutory provision permits such intervention. The ratio of the authorities relied upon supported this restrictive approach and rejected the broader claim of inherent jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The court had no inherent jurisdiction to appoint a chairman or otherwise direct the conduct of the convened company meeting in the absence of express statutory authority.
Issue (ii): Whether the notice of motion seeking interim reliefs, including a declaration disabling certain directors from chairing the meeting and appointment of a receiver for the company's records, was maintainable and capable of being granted.
Analysis: The declaration sought in the plaint was itself misconceived because a court cannot grant a blanket disqualification from chairing future meetings divorced from a legally maintainable substantive claim. The interim relief sought had no real nexus with the main money claim in the suit, and the court would not grant interlocutory protection where the final relief in the same terms was unavailable. The request for a receiver over the company's books and documents was also unsupported by proved material; the allegations of siphoning and fraud were unsubstantiated at that stage and did not justify the drastic remedy sought. Since the motion was founded on prayers that were not maintainable, no interim relief could follow.
Conclusion: The notice of motion was not maintainable and the interim reliefs sought, including appointment of a receiver, were refused.
Final Conclusion: The court declined to interfere in the internal conduct of the company's meeting, held that the motion was legally unsustainable, and dismissed it with costs.
Ratio Decidendi: Rule 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 cannot be used to confer substantive jurisdiction on the court to regulate a company meeting contrary to the Companies Act, 1956 and the company's articles unless the application is otherwise maintainable under a specific statutory provision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
