1992 (8) TMI 294

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tions passed in the 4th Annual General Meeting and the Board of Directors meeting held on 30-4-92 are illegal and void and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the rights of the plaintiff as a director of the first defendant-company and other reliefs. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Company was incorporated in November 1987; that the plaintiff was one of the Directors of the company; that by reason of his being absent for five consecutive meetings of the Board of Directors by virtue of Section 283( l)(g) of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as an 'Act') the office of the Director has fallen vacant and by means of resolution passed in the Annual General Meetin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... learned counsel for the respondent relying upon the decision of our High Court in Avanthi Explosives v. Principal Subordinate judge, (1987) 63 Company Cases 301 argued that the Civil Court has jurisdiction where the jurisdiction is not excluded specifically or by implication by the Act and that the suit to declare that the plaintiff was not disqualified to be Director or Managing Director is maintainable. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants on the other hand relying upon V.N. Patil v. Maharashtra Seeds Corporation Limited, (1990) 68 Company Cases 608 argued that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court must be explicitly conferred by the Central Government; that under Section 10 of the Companies Act, essentially it is the jurisdiction of....