Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court of India

Life Insurance Corporation Of India, ... vs Escorts Ltd. & Others, Etc on 30 April, 1984

Equivalent citations: 1984 SCR (3) 643, 1984 SCALE (1)821, AIRONLINE 1984 SC 35

Author: Syed Murtaza Fazalali

Bench: Syed Murtaza Fazalali, Amarendra Nath Sen, V. Balakrishna Eradi

           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	  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.

With Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 190 of 1984. For the Petitioner/Appellant:

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.

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