Interim injunction over proposed articles amendments refused where shareholder decision-making and meeting procedure remained decisive.

An interim injunction was sought to restrain an extraordinary general meeting from considering amendments to the articles of association, including quorum, delegation of powers and deletion of articles. The Delhi High Court article notes that the memorandum of understanding did not, on the facts, justify blocking the shareholder process, and the expiry of the valuation timetable did not prevent the proposed corporate action. The amendments were treated as matters of management structure and functioning, not as measures to dispossess the plaintiffs of shareholding or offices. The objection regarding absence of fresh notice after adjournment also failed because Table A did not apply under the company's articles, and the injunction was therefore not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether an interim injunction should be granted to restrain the extraordinary general meeting from considering amendments to the articles of association, including changes to quorum, delegation of powers, and deletion of certain articles.

Analysis: The challenge was examined against the background of the parties' prior arrangements and the proposed amendments. The memorandum of understanding did not, on the facts, provide a basis to block the proposed shareholder decision-making process, and the alleged expiry of the valuation timetable did not defeat the proposed corporate action. The proposed changes were treated as measures concerning management structure and functioning, not as a step to dispossess the plaintiffs of their shareholding or existing offices. The objection based on absence of a fresh notice after adjournment also did not succeed because the company's articles showed that Table A did not apply. The proposed amendments were left to the decision of the shareholders, and injunction was considered inappropriate where the meeting itself was the mechanism by which the shareholders could decide the matter.

Conclusion: The injunction was not warranted, and the application failed.

---