https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99927 An application under Rule 9 and Rule 11(b) of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 was held not maintainable where the company meeting had already been duly convened by the company. The court reasoned that inherent powers or the wide language of Rule 9 cannot be used to appoint an independent chairman or an advocate-observer to supervise or observe such a meeting. Any grievance based on intimidation, irregularity, or unlawful conduct must be raised through appropriate later proceedings challenging the conduct or resolutions, rather than by inserting an outsider into the meeting. en-us Thu, 27 Nov 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:07:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99927 An application under Rule 9 and Rule 11(b) of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 was held not maintainable where the company meeting had already been duly convened by the company. The court reasoned that inherent powers or the wide language of Rule 9 cannot be used to appoint an independent chairman or an advocate-observer to supervise or observe such a meeting. Any grievance based on intimidation, irregularity, or unlawful conduct must be raised through appropriate later proceedings challenging the conduct or resolutions, rather than by inserting an outsider into the meeting. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 27 Nov 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99927