TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court can't order a meeting under Companies Act, 1956 if not impracticable. Appeal allowed, High Court judgment set aside.</h1> <h3>R. Rangachari Versus S. Suppiah</h3> R. Rangachari Versus S. Suppiah - [1975] 45 COMP. CAS. 641 (SC) Issues:Interpretation of section 186 of the Companies Act, 1956 regarding the power of the court to order a meeting to be called, held, and conducted.Detailed Analysis:The case involved an appeal by special leave regarding the interpretation of section 186 of the Companies Act, 1956. The main issue was to determine the meaning and scope of section 186, specifically in the context of the appointment of a chairman for a company meeting. The background of the case involved a dispute between two managing directors of a company, which led to shareholders requisitioning an extraordinary general meeting for their removal. The shareholders sought the court's intervention under section 186 to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner as the chairman of the meeting to ensure proper conduct.The High Court initially dismissed the application under section 186, stating that it was not impracticable to hold or conduct the meeting. However, an appeal was filed, and a Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal, appointing an advocate of the court as the advocate-chairman to hold and conduct the meeting. The meeting was directed to take place at the company's registered office.The appellant raised three points in support of the appeal. Firstly, it was argued that the power under section 186 could only be exercised if it was impracticable to call and hold a meeting, and the court could not appoint a chairman without ordering the meeting. Secondly, it was contended that the High Court erred in finding it impracticable to hold the already called meeting. Lastly, the appellant pointed out that the jurisdiction under section 186 had been transferred to the Company Law Board by an amendment in 1974.The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of section 186 and emphasized that the court could order a meeting to be called, held, and conducted only in specific circumstances where it was impracticable to do so otherwise. The court clarified that the order under section 186 must include all three purposes - calling, holding, and conducting the meeting. Since the application in this case did not seek an order for calling a meeting, the court deemed it not maintainable under section 186.Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the application under section 186 as not maintainable. The parties were directed to bear their own costs throughout, concluding the legal proceedings in this matter.
TaxTMI 