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: Whether the Court has power to appoint an independent chairman to preside over a company's general meeting and to direct the manner in which that meeting is conducted.
Analysis: The Court examined the company articles (including article 35 on chairman, article 64 on regulations for election of chairman, and article 42 on proxies), the factual absence of an undisputedly validly elected chairman, disputes among shareholders, and contested proxy rejections. The Court relied on statutory powers referenced in the judgment enabling the Court to call or direct the calling of a general meeting and to give directions as to how a meeting is to be held and conducted (see the judgment's reference to section 76 and section 79(3)). Given the contested nature of important business at the meeting (notably election of directors) and the existence of factional disputes and disputed proxy validity, the Court considered that appointment of an independent presiding officer was appropriate to ensure an orderly and fair meeting and to scrutinise proxies.
Conclusion: The Court modified the lower court's order and directed that an advocate appointed by the Court shall conduct and preside over the annual general meeting as its independent chairman and shall scrutinise the proxies deposited under the articles.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
