2010 (8) TMI 776 - Board - Companies Law

Petition to Postpone AGM Dismissed under Companies Act Section 186 - Relief Not Aligned

Anil Kumar Poddar Versus Pilani Investment & Industries Corpn. Ltd.

The petition filed under section 186 of the Companies Act seeking AGM postponement and document provision was dismissed. The court held that the relief ... Meetings and proceedings - Power of CLB to order meeting to be called Issues:1. Petition under section 186 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking directions for document provision, violation prevention, record availability, and AGM postponement.Analysis:1. The petitioner, a shareholder in the respondent company, sought documents for effective participation in the AGM. Despite multiple reminders, the company failed to provide the requested documents, hindering the petitioner's ability to make informed decisions at the upcoming AGM. The petitioner invoked section 186 of the Companies Act for AGM postponement and document provision.2. The respondent argued that the reliefs sought by the petitioner do not fall under the purview of section 186 of the Companies Act. The respondent contended that section 186 is applicable in situations where it is impracticable to call a meeting other than an AGM, not for postponing an already scheduled AGM due to document non-provision. The respondent maintained that the company is willing to provide inspection of statutory records as per the Act.3. The Bench noted that the petitioner's claims did not align with the requirements of section 186 of the Act. Section 186 empowers the Company Law Board to order special meetings in specific circumstances, not to postpone AGMs. As the respondent had already called the AGM and provided notice to the members, the relief sought by the petitioner was deemed unrelated to section 186 provisions.4. The Bench clarified that the petitioner's request for document provision did not fall under section 186 of the Act, as other provisions govern such reliefs. The respondent assured that the petitioner could inspect registers as per legal requirements. Consequently, the Bench concluded that the petition was misconceived, frivolous, vexatious, and not maintainable in law or fact, leading to its dismissal without costs.Judgment:The petition filed under section 186 of the Companies Act was dismissed as it did not align with the provisions of the Act, and the relief sought for AGM postponement and document provision was deemed outside the scope of section 186. The respondent's argument that the company was willing to provide inspection of records in compliance with the Act was considered valid, leading to the dismissal of the petition.