TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 708
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel for respondent No.4. 2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Initially, the Writ Petition was filed for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take a decision on the complaint of the petitioner dated 09.11.2020 as to whether respondent No.4 can opt for e-voting and remote e-voting or not. Alternatively, prayer was made amongst others as to whether in view of the Companies (Administration and Management) Rules, 2014, as amended, e-voting can be used as a facility by respondent No.4. Related queries have been made by the petitioner seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 for clarification. Another prayer made was for a direction to respondent No.4 not to hold the 96th annual general meeting (AGM) sch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dio visual means to transact various business including appointment of members to the managing committee. 5. It is in the above context that the present Writ Petition has been filed seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 6. Basic contention of Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud is that under Rule 20(4)(vi) of the Companies (Management and Administration) Rules, 2014, a company like the petitioner which provides facility to its members to exercise voting by electronic means shall comply with the procedure mandated thereunder including the facility for remote e-voting to be kept open for not less than three days and which shall close at 5.00 p.m. on the date preceding the date of the general meeting. This provision he contends is violative of Article....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent may prescribe the class or classes of companies and the manner in which a member may exercise his right to vote by electronic means, he submits that this provision is vitiated by complete abdication of legislative power if not for excessive delegation. He has placed reliance on Mahe Beach Trading Co. Vs. Union Territory of Pondicherry, (1996) 3 SCC 741. Therefore, the present is a fit case where Court may examine the aforesaid provision in the context of remote evoting provided by respondent No.4 for the 96th AGM scheduled on 21.12.2020 and stay the process in the interregnum. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Rajendra Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has referred to the reply affidavit filed by the said respondent to oppose ad....