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 order dismissing the application for recall of the withdrawal of the suit, and the connected appellate order, should be set aside and the recall application reheard. (ii) Whether the challenge to the removal of directors and the allotment of shares warranted interference, and whether proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were called for.
Issue (i): Whether the order dismissing the application for recall of the withdrawal of the suit, and the connected appellate order, should be set aside and the recall application reheard.
Analysis: The material on record raised serious doubt about the manner in which the suit had been withdrawn and about the change of advocate and mentioning of the matter for withdrawal on a day when it was not listed for that purpose. The surrounding circumstances suggested that the withdrawal and the refusal to reopen the matter had not been examined with adequate care. In such a situation, the prior orders could not be sustained without a fresh consideration of how the withdrawal had been obtained.
Conclusion: The orders dismissing the recall application and the connected appeal were set aside, and the application was directed to be reheard and decided afresh.
Issue (ii): Whether the challenge to the removal of directors and the allotment of shares warranted interference, and whether proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were called for.
Analysis: The finding that the meetings complained of had not complied with the statutory requirements governing board meetings was not shown to be erroneous, and the conclusion that the removal of the directors and the allotment of shares could not be disturbed was not displaced. On the request for criminal proceedings, no sufficient basis was made out for invoking the court's power under Section 340.
Conclusion: The challenge to the removal of directors and the allotment of shares failed, and the application under Section 340 was dismissed.
Final Conclusion: The first appeal succeeded and was remitted for fresh consideration, while the connected appeal and the request for criminal action were rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Where circumstances surrounding withdrawal of a suit create a serious doubt as to genuineness and authority, the order permitting withdrawal and the refusal to recall it may be set aside for fresh adjudication; separate relief will depend on independent proof of illegality and statutory non-compliance.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
