1986 (12) TMI 297

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... considered thought to the matter before me, I have come to the following findings. This application has been filed in the suit filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration that plaintiff No. 1 is a validly renominated director of defendant No. 7-company on the allegations that plaintiff No. 1 was a director of defendant No. 7 and at the annual general meeting held on March 31, 1986, he was to retire by rotation and was to be re-elected as director thereof, being the sole representative of NRI group and being in possession of majority support of other local Indian shareholders in the form of proxies, but defendant No. 1, in conspiracy with defendants Nos. 2 to 4 and two other directors, objected to the renomination of plaintiff No. 1 and, a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ould be difficult to accept the contention of learned counsel for the defendants that these plaintiffs have no cause of action. Order 1, rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure lays as under : "All persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs where- (a)any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist in such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative ; and (b)if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise." Keeping in view the wording of this rule, it would be difficult to say that plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 30 could not be joined as plaintiffs in this suit. Be it under clause (a) or clause (b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is suit. The shareholders of a company have a right and interest in the affairs of the company and they further have a right to have a board of directors of their choice and where these rights of the shareholders are adversely affected by the action of the defendants, such shareholders would certainly have got a cause of action to challenge the proceedings negativing these rights of theirs including the action of the defendants whereby the shareholders' right to vote by proxy has been negatived and they have been prevented from having a board of directors of their choice. This right of the shareholders is joint and several and consequently all such shareholders who have been denied such right can join together as plaintiffs in one and th....