Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
ESCORTS LTD. & OTHERS, ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT30/04/1984
BENCH:
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
BENCH:
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)
ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)
CITATION:
1984 SCR (3) 643 1984 SCALE (1)821
ACT:
Companies Act 1956 ss. 166 and 284 Annual general
meeting holding of notice seeking removal of directors of
company-High Court granting stay injunction in writ
petition-interference by Supreme Court.
HEADNOTE:
The appellants in their appeals to this Court
challenged the order of a Single Judge of the High Court
admitting the writ petition of the first respondent company
and staying of the notice seeking removal of certain
Directors of the company.
^
HELD: 1. There will be an order vacating the order of
stay/injunction passed by the Single judge of the High
Court, prohibiting any action being taken on the basis of
the requisition put in by L.I.C. [644E]
2. All appropriate proceedings will be taken in
accordance with law on the basis of the requisition.
However, no effect should be given to any resolution the
company may pass at the extra-ordinary general meeting to be
held in consequence of the requisition without obtaining
prior directing from this Court. [644F-G]
3. The pendency of these cases in this Court will not
stand in the way of holding the annual general meeting of
the company in the normal course. [644G]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2317 of
1984.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14/15.3.1984 of the
High Court of Bombay in W.P. No. 3063/1983.
And
Civil Appeal No. 2318 of 1984.
From the Judgment and order dated 14/15.3.1983 of the
Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 3063/1983.
644
With
Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 190 of 1984.
For the Petitioner/Appellant:
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
K. Parasan, Attorney General, Milan K. Banerjee, Addl.
Solicitor General, S.A. Shroff, Miss A Subhashini and Dr. V.
Gori Shanker,
For the Respondents:
N. A. Palkhivala, Soli J. Sorabjee, P. R. Mridul, A. B.
Divan, Dr. L.M. Singhvi, K K. Venugopal, J.B. Dadachanji,
Rajinder Narain, Harish Salve, B.S. Bantia, K.S. Cooper,
Bedabratta Barua, R. Nariman, T.M. Ansari, P.K. Ram, Mrs.
A.K. Verma and D.N. Mishra.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL ALI, J.
In SLP (C) Nos. 5392/84 & 5412/84.
We have heard learned Attorney General for the
petitioners and Mr. Palkhivala, learned counsel for
respondents at length.
Special leave granted. There will be an order vacating
the order of stay/injunction passed by the Single Judge of
the High Court, prohibiting any action being taken on the
basis of the requisition put in by L.I.C. We direct that all
appropriate proceedings will be taken in accordance with law
on the basis of the requisition. However, no effect should
be given to any resolution the company may pass at the
extra-ordinary general meeting to be held in consequence of
the requisition without obtaining prior directions from this
Court. The Pendency of these cases in this Court will not
stand in the way of holding the annual general meeting of
the company in the normal course. These appeals are disposed
of except that they will be kept pending for the limited
purpose to enable counsel to move this Court for directions
as indicated above. In computing the time for taking steps
pursuant to the requisition, the period from the date of
requisition till this day will be excluded in view of
interim stay/injunction granted by the High Court.
The prayer for amendment of the cause title is allowed.
645
Transfer Petition (C) No. 190 of 1984.
Mr. Palkhivala, learned counsel on behalf of the
respondents states that matter is being listed before the
High Court for final hearing on 11th June, 1984 and he
assures this Court that his clients will fully co-operate so
that the case can be heard and finally disposed of in the
High Court by the end of June, 1984. We request the High
Court to dispose of the matter finally as expeditiously as
possible. In view of this, the learned Attorney General does
not press the Transfer Petition for the present which is
accordingly dismissed.
N.V.K. Writ Petition allowed
Transfer Petition dismissed.
646