Revisional interference with temporary injunction is limited to jurisdictional error, and proxy-regulation powers may extend to valid votes.

Revisional interference under section 115 CPC is confined to jurisdictional error, illegality, or material irregularity; concurrent discretionary orders refusing temporary injunction cannot be disturbed merely because another view on the merits is possible. The article further notes that a shareholders' resolution empowering a sub-committee to decide disputed proxies and declare the result was wide enough to permit action on proxies found valid, and the regulation of the poll could include the manner of taking votes. On the facts discussed, no prima facie case or balance of convenience justified interim relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court could interfere with concurrent orders refusing temporary injunction merely because another view on the merits was possible. (ii) Whether the sub-committee appointed by the shareholders' resolution was empowered to treat the disputed proxies as valid, invite them to vote, and whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for temporary injunction.

Issue (i): Whether, in revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court could interfere with concurrent orders refusing temporary injunction merely because another view on the merits was possible.

Analysis: Revisional power under section 115 is confined to jurisdictional error, illegality, or material irregularity affecting the exercise of jurisdiction. It does not authorize correction of mere errors of fact or law where the subordinate courts have applied the correct principles and have reached concurrent findings on discretionary relief. Since both courts below had considered the material and refused injunction on recognised grounds, the revisional court could not substitute its own view on the merits.

Conclusion: The refusal of temporary injunction did not disclose any jurisdictional error warranting interference in revision.

Issue (ii): Whether the sub-committee appointed by the shareholders' resolution was empowered to treat the disputed proxies as valid, invite them to vote, and whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for temporary injunction.

Analysis: The resolution authorising the sub-committee to decide the disputed proxies and declare the election result necessarily included the power to act on proxies found valid. Section 185 of the Companies Act, 1956, was treated as wide enough to permit regulation of the poll, including the manner in which votes were to be taken. The court also held that the poll had not concluded on the meeting date and that the plaintiff, who continued as director under the same resolution, could not approbate and reprobate by accepting one part of the resolution and challenging another. On these facts, the findings that there was no prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was not in favour of the plaintiff were sustainable.

Conclusion: The sub-committee acted within its authority, and the plaintiff was not entitled to temporary injunction.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the concurrent refusal of interim injunction suffered from no revisional infirmity, and the discretionary relief was rightly declined on the facts and governing company-law principles.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, concurrent discretionary orders refusing temporary injunction cannot be interfered with merely because a different view on merits is possible, absent jurisdictional error or material irregularity; where a shareholders' resolution authorises a committee to decide disputed proxies and declare the result, its authority extends to acting upon the valid proxies for the poll.

---