Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. Based on the said orders of this court, the respondents proceeded to issue notices by enclosing proxy forms.

13. In view of the subsequent developments which took place in the matter, the appellants herein had filed applications seeking for amendment of the pleadings in the plaint, amendment of the cause title, relief sought for and also furnished various other documents supporting the claims for amendment. In fact, the first appellant filed O. A. No. 435 of 1995 in C. S. No. 1128 of 1994 and the second appellant filed O. A. No. 436 of 1995 in C. S. No. 1132 of 1994 seeking for injunction restraining the respondents, their men, officers, subordinates or any one claiming under them from giving effect to or implementing resolutions Nos. 10, 11 and 12 said to have been passed on September 12, 1994, and March 20, 1995, as is evident from the resolutions which were disclosed before the Supreme Court of India and this court. The respondent companies had filed Application No. 7151 of 1994 in C. S. No. 1128 of 1994 and Application No. 7153 of 1994 in C. S. No. 1132 of 1994 seeking for permission for the implementation of resolutions Nos. 10 and 11 approved by the general body of the company held on September 12, 1994. They also filed Application No. 1628 of 1995 in C. S. No. 1128 of 1994 and Application No. 1631 of 1995 in C. S. No. 1132 of 1994 seeking for opening of the sealed envelop in this court and causing the results of the poll to be known to the respondents and its shareholders and if the results indicate that resolution No. 12 has been passed by the requisite majority as per the provisions of the Companies Act, to allow the respondents to implement the same. The appellants also took out O. A. No. 220 of 1995 in C. S. No. 1128 of 1994 and sought for injunction restraining the respondents from in any manner proceeding to further implement the beer project or from carrying out any construction for the beer project or from carrying or on any manufacturing activities or trading activities either directly or indirectly in beer. One other Application No. 1312 of 1995 in C. S. No. 1128 of 1994 filed by the first appellant seeking for directing the respondents to keep the monies earmarked for the beer project in a separate bank account pending disposal of the suit and the decision by this court on the legality and validity of resolution No. 10 of the notice dated August 5, 1994, and implementation thereof in the light of the directions of the Supreme Court.

55. The further argument of Mr. Mohan Parasaran in regard to calling for fresh proxies is also baseless for the simple reasons that fresh proxies ought to be called for as it is a matter of right to the shareholders to change their respective proxies for the adjourned meetings and for the new shareholders to give their own proxies for the adjourned meeting. It is also stated that in order to enable the shareholders to exercise their rights, the notice of the adjourned meeting was enclosed with the proxy form. We are unable to understand as to how it could be categorised as an unlawful act on the part of the first respondent-company. It is suffice to state that the adjourned meeting shall transact only the business left untouched in the original meeting and no new business could be transacted. In accordance with this principle, resolutions No. 12 alone was to be transacted and, therefore, the notice of the meeting was issued with the same wording as that of the previous notice of meeting dated August 5, 1994.