TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1971 (2) TMI 76
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers. There were two others, D. A. Bhalerao and D. R. Palsodkar, who were not shareholders but were present as proxies. In the said meeting applicant No. 2 was declared elected as the director of the company. The opponent No. 1's grievance is that applicant No. 2 was elected illegally. He, therefore, filed a suit on February 5, 1970, seeking a declaration that the resolutions adopted at the said meeting as well as the election were in contravention of the rules and regulations and were therefore null and void. Opponent No. 1 also prayed for an injunction and, therefore, filed an application under Order 39, Civil Procedure Code, against the applicants and opponent No. 2 restraining them from giving any effect to the resolutions passed in the meeting on January 24, 1970, and for further restraining the applicant No. 2 to act as a duly elected director of the company and for participating in the meetings of the board of directors. This application was opposed by the applicants on the ground that there was no allegation that any irreparable injury would be caused to the opponent No. 1 if an interim injunction was not granted and the balance of convenience was in favour of the applican....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tents of the rights claimed by the plaintiff. The court has not only to find the contents of the rights claimed by the plaintiff but also has to consider whether irreparable injury or inconvenience would result to the plaintiff if the same is refused. But the learned advocate for the applicants contends here that it is not always necessary to look into both these elements. According to him in a case such as the one with which we are concerned, viz., regarding an election to a post, temporary injunction should not be granted even if a legal injury was caused unless and until the election was set aside. For this purpose, he relies on a case of this court in Jagannath Pundlik v. Sukhdeo Onkar [1967] Mah. LJ 126. A Division Bench of this court was hearing a writ petition against an order in an election petition challenging the validity of the election of successful candidates to a village panchayat. It does not appear to me that this court laid down any ratio in this case that, even if an injury is caused, temporary injunction cannot be granted in such cases unless and until the election is finally set aside. It is to the contrary. This court did consider rule 2 of Order 39 in which th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt must also consider the question of irreparable or serious injury and balance of convenience." The learned assistant judge against whose order the present application is filed relied on Abdul Gafur v. Mustakim Ali AIR 1970 Assam 96. The plaintiff there had filed a suit for declaration that the election of the defendant as chairman of the society was void and illegal and that the defendant was not entitled to hold the office as the chairman of the said society and an interim injunction restraining the defendant from taking over charge and functioning as chairman was granted by the trial court. The defendant challenged the injunction order, inter alia, on the ground that the suit itself was barred by section 79(2) of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act. It was held there that as the plaintiff had challenged the very constitution of the managing committee which elected the defendant as the chairman, the plaintiff had a prima facie case to go to trial. Under section 79(2) of the above-said Co-operative Societies Act, the civil court's jurisdiction was not barred where the question of jurisdiction was involved regarding the subject-matter of the suit. Hence it could not be said tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....law. There can be a demand for poll under section 179 of the Companies Act before or on the declaration of the result of the voting of any resolution and the chairman has to accept such demand. The proxies also can demand a poll. The minutes show that the chairman ruled out the demand for poll because, according to him, the proxy represented by a person who was not a member could not demand a poll. Then in the matter of election of a director it was said by the chairman that a proxy who is not a shareholder cannot second the proposal of Dixit, opponent No. 1. This is also prima facie not correct. But when one Mr. Deo, who was a shareholder, stood up and seconded the proposal, the chairman said that it was not then open for anybody to propose, second or support any proposal. It is in these circumstances that the chairman declared that there was only one candidate, Dr. B. V. Deshmukh, and declared him to be elected as a director of the company. The plaintiff, opponent No. 1, therefore, is aggrieved by this conduct of the meeting. We have a case in In re Horbury Bridge Coal, Iron and Waggon Company [1879] 11 Ch. D. 109 where that court was considering whether in such meetings it was ....