TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the Official Trustee, being entered in the company's register as holder of the shares, was entitled to vote in person or by proxy and whether the Chairman could reject the proxy on the basis of Section 153 of the Companies Act, 1956; (ii) whether the remedies under the Companies Act, 1956 barred a civil suit challenging the proceedings of the annual general meeting; (iii) whether the shareholders had a cause of action and locus to seek declarations and consequential reliefs regarding the impugned resolutions.
Issue (i): Whether the Official Trustee, being entered in the company's register as holder of the shares, was entitled to vote in person or by proxy and whether the Chairman could reject the proxy on the basis of Section 153 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Analysis: The entry of the Official Trustee in the register of members made him a member for the purposes of the Act. Section 153 of the Companies Act, 1956, which prevents notice of trust from being entered on the register, did not disable the Official Trustee from being recognised as shareholder. Sections 6 and 14 of the Official Trustees Act, Central Act II of 1913, showed that the Official Trustee is a corporation sole and that his entry by that name does not constitute notice of trust, nor can the company object to his name being entered merely because he is a corporation. Section 176 of the Companies Act, 1956, only governed the form of proxy, and the proxy executed in writing by the Official Trustee was valid. As no rectification of the register had been sought under Section 155, the Chairman had no basis to treat the Official Trustee as disentitled to vote.
Conclusion: The rejection of the Official Trustee's proxy was illegal, and the Official Trustee was entitled to vote by proxy.
Issue (ii): Whether the remedies under the Companies Act, 1956 barred a civil suit challenging the proceedings of the annual general meeting.
Analysis: Sections 166, 167, 169 and 186 of the Companies Act, 1956 did not fit the facts, because the dispute was not about a failure to hold an annual general meeting or about calling an extraordinary meeting, but about the legality of proceedings already taken in an annual general meeting and the validity of resolutions passed thereat. The Act did not exclude the jurisdiction of the civil court in such a dispute. The reliefs claimed, namely declarations that certain proceedings and resolutions were void and consequential injunctions, were of the kind that civil courts had entertained in company disputes affecting voting rights and validity of resolutions.
Conclusion: The civil suit was maintainable and the statutory provisions relied on did not bar the court's jurisdiction.
Issue (iii): Whether the shareholders had a cause of action and locus to seek declarations and consequential reliefs regarding the impugned resolutions.
Analysis: The challenge related to the denial of a shareholder's voting right and to resolutions allegedly passed after excluding a valid proxy. Such conduct, if upheld, would amount to an illegal interference with shareholders' rights and could not be cured merely by internal corporate action. The case fell within recognised exceptions to the rule in Foss v. Harbottle, particularly where the act complained of was ultra vires or illegal and where redress could not effectively be obtained otherwise. The plaintiffs, therefore, had a sufficient cause of action to seek declaratory and injunctive reliefs.
Conclusion: The plaintiffs had locus and a maintainable cause of action to sue.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the decrees of the courts below were affirmed, and the directions for holding the continuation meeting and for management of the company pending constitution of a proper board were maintained.
Ratio Decidendi: A shareholder whose name stands in the register of members, including an Official Trustee entered as a corporation sole, is entitled to vote personally or by proxy, and a civil court can grant declaratory and consequential relief against illegal company proceedings where the complaint concerns infringement of voting rights and invalid resolutions, since the Companies Act, 1956 does not exclude such jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 
