https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112084 The court declined to grant an interim injunction against the second respondent, despite acknowledging the illegality of his appointment as managing director under the Companies Act, 1956. The court considered familial relations and past acquiescence of the plaintiffs until a conflict arose. The direction for the second respondent to convene a general body meeting was set aside, emphasizing that shareholders should initiate such meetings in accordance with the Companies Act. Eligible shareholders were granted the liberty to address the election of the managing director through the proper procedures. en-us Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Dec 2014 16:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112084 The court declined to grant an interim injunction against the second respondent, despite acknowledging the illegality of his appointment as managing director under the Companies Act, 1956. The court considered familial relations and past acquiescence of the plaintiffs until a conflict arose. The direction for the second respondent to convene a general body meeting was set aside, emphasizing that shareholders should initiate such meetings in accordance with the Companies Act. Eligible shareholders were granted the liberty to address the election of the managing director through the proper procedures. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112084