Just a moment...
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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the proposed EGM should be restrained by interim order on the ground that the notice and explanatory statement were allegedly contrary to Section 102 of the Companies Act, 2013 and whether the applicant had made out a case for interim relief.
Analysis: The application sought cancellation and stay of the EGM proposed to be held shortly. The objections were that the notice and explanatory statement did not disclose all material facts and that inspection of documents had been refused. The respondents opposed the request on the ground of delay and contended that the meeting was a statutory requirement. The Tribunal noted that a Section 8 application challenging maintainability of the main company petition was already pending, and that the applicant had received notice of the EGM and could attend the meeting and raise objections there. On those facts, the Tribunal found no sufficient basis to restrain the meeting at the interim stage.
Conclusion: Interim restraint on holding the EGM was not granted.
Final Conclusion: The applicant failed to obtain interim protection against the scheduled EGM, and the interim application was disposed of without granting the requested restraint.
Ratio Decidendi: Interim restraint on a scheduled corporate meeting will not be granted where the applicant has notice of the meeting, can participate and raise objections, and no compelling ground is shown for immediate interference.