Requisitioned extraordinary general meeting rights preserved as civil suit held maintainable and interim compliance ordered.

A civil suit challenging obstruction of a requisitioned extraordinary general meeting was held maintainable despite an objection that the parties should have gone to the company law forum, because the pleaded dispute over voting rights and the requisition process could not be adequately resolved there on the facts. Interim protection was also granted: the Court found a strong prima facie case that the requisition was supported by Section 100 of the Companies Act, 2013, Rule 17(7) of the Companies (Management and Administration) Rules, 2014, and the company's articles, and held that balance of convenience and irreparable injury favoured preserving the meeting process. The respondents were directed to comply with the requisition notice and furnish the shareholders' list.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit was not maintainable on the ground that the plaintiffs should have approached the company law forum under the Companies Act, and (ii) whether the plaintiffs were entitled to interim protection directing compliance with the requisition notice and disclosure of the shareholders' list for convening an extraordinary general meeting.

Issue (i): whether the suit was not maintainable on the ground that the plaintiffs should have approached the company law forum under the Companies Act.

Analysis: The suit was for declarations and injunctions concerning the alleged obstruction of the requisitioned extraordinary general meeting. The objection based on Section 186 of the Companies Act, 1956 was examined against the pleadings, the requisition notice, the shareholding position, and the rival stand that voting rights themselves had been curtailed. On the facts of the case, relegating the plaintiffs to the company law forum would not resolve the controversy and the suit could not be treated as not maintainable.

Conclusion: The suit was held maintainable and the objection to maintainability was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the plaintiffs were entitled to interim protection directing compliance with the requisition notice and disclosure of the shareholders' list for convening an extraordinary general meeting.

Analysis: The Court found a strong prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs. It held that the requisitioned meeting was supported by the statutory scheme under Section 100 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 17(7) of the Companies (Management and Administration) Rules, 2014, and also by the company's articles. The balance of convenience and the risk of irreparable injury were held to favour the plaintiffs because refusal of interim relief would frustrate the suit and permit the impugned actions to continue unchecked.

Conclusion: Interim protection was granted, and the respondents were directed to comply with the requisition notice and furnish the requisite shareholders' list.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court protected the requisition process for convening the extraordinary general meeting and preserved the subject matter pending further hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory requisition process for an extraordinary general meeting is prima facie obstructed, and the pleaded challenge to maintainability does not displace the civil court's jurisdiction on the facts, interim relief may be granted to preserve the requisitionists' rights and prevent the suit from being rendered nugatory.

---