https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459356 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459356 Maintainability of the suit - entitlement to interim relief/injunction - abuse of process and suppression of material facts - plaintiffs have prima facie case, where the balance of convenience lies or not - absence of any direction from any judicial forum. Maintainability of the suit - HELD THAT:- On conjoint reading of Section 100 of Companies Act, 2013 and the objection taken by the respondents, including the one that the voting right is already suspended by the Company qua the said share holding, asking the plaintiffs to move the Company Law Board would be meaningless because their (plaintiffs ) lack of voting right as contended by the respondents would make the proceedings before the Company Law Board as well, not maintainable. This is over and above an additional aspect that, the provision of Section 186 of the Companies Act, prima facie can not be read to be meant for the circumstances like the present one, however no final opinion needs to be expressed with regard to the scope and ambit of the said section, since that is not the controversy before this Court - Suffice it to hold that, in the facts of this case, considering the material on record and the chequered history between the contesting parties, and the chronology of the actions taken by the respondents, as borne out from record, the suit in question can not be termed to be not maintainable. The suit is therefore held to be maintainable. Whether the plaintiffs have prima facie case, where the balance of convenience lies and who would suffer irreparable loss, if the injunction as prayed for is not granted? - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that, what is prayed for by the plaintiffs is within four corners of law, and even in absence of any direction from any judicial forum, the respondents were under legal obligation to act in accordance with law. Therefore, by giving direction to the respondents to act in accordance with law, no prejudice would be caused to them, but in the event it is not done, the plaintiffs would certainly suffer irreparable loss. By the impugned action taken at the Board Meeting dated 10.11.2014 the voting right is also claimed to have been taken of the plaintiffs/ shareholders - This Court finds that, refusal by this Court to grant interim relief as prayed for by the plaintiffs, would not only make the civil suit infructuous but would have effect of giving premium to the respondents for the impugned actions/in actions, if ultimately it turns out to be unsustainable. The argument of learned advocate for the respondents with regard to arbitration clause would not help the respondents for the reason that even they had, unsuccessfully attempted so, once before this Court. This Court also does not find any substance in the argument canvassed on behalf of the respondents about suppression of material fact by the plaintiffs or that the proceedings are taken out one by one by the plaintiffs or persons of their group. This Court has taken into consideration the cause of action and prayer clauses of those proceedings and after doing so, this contention is rejected. Appeal admitted - List for further consideration on 16.03.2015. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 19 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530