https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97574 Section 135(1) of the Companies Act 1948 was construed broadly to permit a court to order a company meeting where, as a practical matter, the meeting could not properly be conducted. "Impracticable" was treated as wider than impossibility and required assessment of practical ability to hold the meeting. Shareholder opposition did not by itself remove jurisdiction, because the statute contained no requirement of unanimity or absence of objection. Once jurisdiction existed, the court could exercise its discretion, and it was relevant that refusal to convene the meeting would prevent use of company machinery to exercise the statutory power to remove directors and would leave an annual general meeting duty unperformed. en-us Wed, 02 Jul 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:48:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97574 Section 135(1) of the Companies Act 1948 was construed broadly to permit a court to order a company meeting where, as a practical matter, the meeting could not properly be conducted. "Impracticable" was treated as wider than impossibility and required assessment of practical ability to hold the meeting. Shareholder opposition did not by itself remove jurisdiction, because the statute contained no requirement of unanimity or absence of objection. Once jurisdiction existed, the court could exercise its discretion, and it was relevant that refusal to convene the meeting would prevent use of company machinery to exercise the statutory power to remove directors and would leave an annual general meeting duty unperformed. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 02 Jul 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97574