Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The grounds on which the election is attacked by the plaintiffs in the two suits are almost the same. Only one extra ground is added in the suit filed on the Original Side of this Court by the plaintiff in that suit. We will refer to it at the appropriate place. First ground is that the management collected blank proxy forms and filled up the same later and the said proxies are, therefore, invalid. It is also alleged that the proxies are all manipulated, interpolated and fraudulently created as would be seen from the proxies of the same persons on 21.12.1992 and their accompanying letters revoking the previous proxies given, if any and conspicuously the proxies given two days later do not revoke the proxy given on 21.12.1992. It is not necessary for us to refer to the averments in the counter affidavit as the only plea taken by the bank is that when the proxies were deposited with the Bank, they were duly filled up and that there was no blank. It is seen from the records that blank proxy forms have been filed by the plaintiffs in these suits as Exs.A-1 and P-1. They are only model proxy forms as prescribed by Schedule 9 to the Companies Act and they have been sent to the shareholders along with the notice of the Annual General Meeting. It is not necessary for the bank to fill up those forms at that time. The allegation that blank proxy forms have been collected by the Management has not been established by any record at this stage. As at present, there is no evidence before us that proxy forms were collected and filled up by the management itself. The allegation made in the plaint filed in the City Civil Court that proxy forms were manipulated, interpolated and fraudulently created is not supported by any evidence therefor. The plaint states that few of the proxies which were collected are attached to the plaint as document No. 2. But no document was filed by the plaintiff as document No. 2. A docket has been filed and on the docket itself, an endorsement has been made by learned Counsel for the plaintiff that document No 2 has not been filed along with the plaint. We have numbered the docket as Ex. A-2 for identification purpose. Thus, the averment made in the plaint has rot been substantiated and no attempt has been made even before us to produce those proxy forms. There is no evidence also with regard to the proxies given on 21.12.1992 and the letters said to have accompanied revoking the previous proxies or the proxies given after 21.12.1992. On the other hand we have some positive evidence to disprove the case of the plaintiffs. Ex.B-19 which corresponds to Ex.B-4 is the Register of Proxies. The appellant in O.S.A. No. 22 of 1993 has inspected the register, verified the proxies and made an endorsement on 26.12.1992 as follows:

Shri. S. Kathiresen, Company Secretary, informed the members that the management was not aware of collection of proxies by any one before the date of despatch of notices. The printed proxy forms in conformity with the Companies Act were circulated to the shareholders only with the Annual Report and notice for the Annual General Meeting. All proxies lodged with the Bank were "dated. He further pointed out that all the proxies were verified and certified in writing by Shri T.K. Sriram, Director, Jats Electronics and Shri Murugappa Murugappan and Shri M.K. Bashyam on 26th and 27th December, 1992 that "all proxies verified and found in order." Based on these he concluded that no provision in the Companies Act had been vitiated. The members expressed their satisfaction over the reply.
...Further more, the grievance in this behalf can only be raised by the person who had executed a blank proxy. There is no complaint from any one of them that their proxies have wrongly been utilised. How and under what circumstances the plaintiff can come forward and champion the cause of other shareholders is not explained. Such an objection, to my mind, cannot be entertained." Having regard to the evidence on record and the abovesaid prosecution of law, we have no hesitation to hold that the objection to the election on the ground that blank proxy forms were collected and filled up and that the proxies were invalid, has to fail.

18. It is then argued by learned Counsel for the appellant in O.S.A. No. 22 of 1993 that there is no explanation on the part of the Bank as to why the Annual General Meeting which should have been held in September, 1992 was postponed and held only in December, 1992. According to him, the balance sheet was ready on 10.6.1992 and the meeting should have been held in September, 1992. He refers to the letters of the Registrar of Companies granting extention of time till 30.11.1992 in the first instance and till 31.12.1992 in the second instance. The two letters are marked as Ex.R-20. Learned Counsel submits that the Bank ought to have produced the letters written to the Registrar praying for extention of time for holding the Annual General Meeting. According to him, those letters would have disclosed the reasons and when it is alleged by the plaintiffs that there was no proper reason for postponing the meeting, it is the duty of the bank to have produced those letters and satisfied the court that there was justification for postponing the meeting. According to him, the meeting was postponded only for the purpose of collecting the proxies from the shareholders. It is argued that the Management collected blank proxies in that period and after collecting sufficient number of proxies held the meeting in December, 1992. We have already held that there is no record to show that the Management collected blank proxies. There is no substance in the contention that the Management ought to have produced the letters written to the Registrar for postponement of the meeting. The Registrar has sanctioned the postponement and there is no dispute about the same. Hence, the meeting held on 28.12.1992 is in no way affected or invalidated, joint because the Bank has not produced the letters in this Court praying for extension of time. It does not mean that the Bank has acted mala fide or that they got the meeting postponed for the purpose of collecting blank proxies. Apart from that, it is seen from the minutes of the meeting held on 28.12.1992 and marked as Ex.R.-4 that an objection was raised by the appellant, in O.S.A. No. 22 of 1993 and answered at the meeting. It is recorded in the minutes that T.R. Sriram who is the appellant in O.S.A. No. 22 of 1993 enquired the reason for holding the meeting in December, 1992 though the accounts were finalised in June, 1992 and he wanted explanation from the Management for not having printed the date of the meeting in the proxy form. The answer was given by the Chairman of the meeting. He has stated, as seen from the minutes, that there was no sinister motive in the postponement of the meeting as the Board was waiting for the result of action initiated by the Reserve Bank of India against the former Chairman Sabapathy and decided to hold the meeting after the date of his retirement in the normal course. It is stated that the date of retirement of the former Chairman in the normal course was 18.12.1992. The appellant in O.S.A. No. 22 of 1993 was satisfied with the answer and he did not pursue his objection, even though his present counsel appearing in this appeal who was also a shareholder expressed his dissatisfaction with the reply. There is no substance in the objection as the Registrar has extended the time for holding the meeting and it was lawfully held on 28.12.1992.