https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103517 Election of a company chairman under the Articles of Association was treated as valid where a majority of directors supported the appointment under Article 145. The nominated director's affirmative vote was not required under Article 146 because repeated retirement and shareholder re-election meant he was not a non-rotational director under Article 114. Although the joint venture and shareholders' agreements were incorporated into the Articles and bound the company, the relevant parties had not exercised their right to appoint non-rotational directors. The appellants therefore failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury for temporary injunctive relief. en-us Wed, 30 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:39:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103517 Election of a company chairman under the Articles of Association was treated as valid where a majority of directors supported the appointment under Article 145. The nominated director's affirmative vote was not required under Article 146 because repeated retirement and shareholder re-election meant he was not a non-rotational director under Article 114. Although the joint venture and shareholders' agreements were incorporated into the Articles and bound the company, the relevant parties had not exercised their right to appoint non-rotational directors. The appellants therefore failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury for temporary injunctive relief. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 30 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103517