https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102330 The court upheld the validity of the notice requisitioning the extraordinary general meeting, finding compliance with statutory requirements. It clarified that the obligation to annex an explanatory statement lies with the company, not the requisitionists. Section 284 regarding removal of directors was deemed inapplicable to the case. The petitioner was deemed to have locus standi to maintain the application, and the entitlement to an injunction was denied as shareholders have the right to call meetings. Company Application No. 602 of 1992 was dismissed without costs awarded. en-us Tue, 12 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:12:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102330 The court upheld the validity of the notice requisitioning the extraordinary general meeting, finding compliance with statutory requirements. It clarified that the obligation to annex an explanatory statement lies with the company, not the requisitionists. Section 284 regarding removal of directors was deemed inapplicable to the case. The petitioner was deemed to have locus standi to maintain the application, and the entitlement to an injunction was denied as shareholders have the right to call meetings. Company Application No. 602 of 1992 was dismissed without costs awarded. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 12 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102330