Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This appeal under section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, is directed against the order dated February 2, 1987, passed by G. C. Jain J. dismissing an appeal under rule 4, Chapter II, of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967, against the order of the Registrar dated November 14, 1986, directing that certified copies of the proxies be supplied to the plaintiff in the suit as per the rules.

2. In order to appreciate the preliminary objection that the appeal is not maintainable, it is necessary to state certain facts. M/s. Swadeshi Polytex Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the company"), defendant No. 2 in the suit/appellant before us, is a public limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act. Shri V. K. Goel, plaintiff in the suit, is a registered shareholder of 50 equity shares of Rs. 10 each in the company. The secretary of the company issued on January 23, 1986, a notice for holding the 16th annual general meeting of the company on March 15, 1986, at its registered office. Shri Raghu Raj was appointed as the chairman of this annual general meeting of the company. Section 176 of the Companies Act, 1956, gives a right to the members of a company entitled to attend and vote at a meeting to cast their votes by proxy. Some members of the company executed two instruments of proxies each, appointing proxies which were duly lodged with the company. The proxies appointed under one set voted for Dr. Rajaram Jaipuria and his nominees. Proxies appointed by the same members under another set voted for Sri Mahendra Swarup and his nominees. The plaintiff raised objections to the proxies and submitted a letter to the chairman of the meeting in this regard. The objection was that the instruments of proxy by virtue of which the proxies voted in favor of Dr. Rajaram Jaipuria and his nominees were from all over India but had been signed and dated March 13, 1986. In other words, this dating was not done at the time of the execution of the proxies by the members but was done at the time of submission of proxies to the company with the object of making these proxies the last proxies of the members and this act amounted to tampering with the original instruments of proxy with the result that the said proxies were liable to be rejected by the chairman and other scrutinising officers. It was contended that in case there was more than one proxy by the same member, then the matter be investigated to find out which was the last proxy executed by him. The plaintiff by another letter dated April 2, 1986, invited the attention of the chairman that the investigation in terms of article 91 of the articles of association may be made in this behalf. The chairman declared the result on April 4, 1986, after taking into account the votes by proxies objected to by the plaintiff. Being aggrieved, he filed a suit on April 5, 1986, seeking a decree for declaration that the instruments of proxy executed last shall prevail over those executed earlier regardless of the date mentioned in the instrument of proxy; a decree for mandatory injunction commanding the defendants to make an enquiry/investigation into the execution/revocation of the various instruments of proxies and that the results of the poll announced at the 16th annual general meeting were invalid and void besides another relief of an injunction restraining the persons declared as directors of the company from acting as directors of the company.

13. We may recall that the relief claimed in the suit is on the allegations that the instrument of proxies in favor of proxies who voted for Dr. Rajaram Jaipuria and his nominee, which were counted, were illegal and invalid and instruments of proxies by virtue of which votes were cast in favor of Shri Mahindra Swarup and his nominee, which were disallowed, were valid. The proxies are thus material and relevant documents for the purpose of the disposal of the suit. The learned single judge in the order under appeal had upheld the order made by the Registrar for supply of certified copies as per rules and expressed that it does not affect the right of the appellant. In our view, he is perfectly justified in saying so. The learned single judge had by an ex parte order made on April 5, 1986, directed the defendants to deposit the proxies in court on April 7, 1986, and on the next date, i.e., April 7, 1986, directed in the presence of counsel for the parties that the order of deposit of proxies be complied with by April 9, 1986. The appellant moved an application dated April 9, 1986, under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being I. A. No. 2351 of 1986, in which it was stated that the registered office of the company is at Ghaziabad where the proxies and records have been kept and where the annual general meeting had taken place and that the secretary of defendant No. 2 company, Shri Anil Jhala, had gone to Ghaziabad that morning with a view to collect proxies in order to have the same deposited in this court and sealed . The inability to file the proxies was then expressed as the same had been seized by a Commissioner appointed by the Court of Sub-Civil Judge, Ghaziabad. The appellant had thus expressed his willingness to deposit stand of the appellant is that the proxies form part of the record of the civil suit of Ghaziabad Court, and similarly it would have formed part of record of this court, if filed. It is not disputed that if the appellant had deposited the proxies in this court, the plaintiff would be entitled to obtain certified copies. We see no prejudice to the appellant if the copies are obtained out of the summoned record because it was filed in Ghaziabad Court and not in this court.

14. Section 176 of the Companies Act, 1956, provides that any member of the company entitled to attend and vote at a meeting of the company shall be entitled to appoint another person (whether a member or not) as his proxy to attend and vote instead of himself. Sub-section (7) of section 176 provides that every member entitled to vote at a meeting of the company or on any resolution to moved thereat shall be entitled during the period beginning twenty-four hours before the time fixed for the commencement of the meeting and ending with the conclusion of the meeting, to inspect the proxies lodged at any time during the business hours of the company, provided not less than three days' notice in writing of the intention so to inspect is given to the company. The statutory provisions made it clear that the proxies deposited with a company are open to inspection and there is no secrecy either in the signatures or in at any time be revoked. As a rule, a proxy is not revoked unless written notice of the revocation has been received by the company. The case of the plaintiff is that the proxies executed in favor of Dr. Rajaram Jaipuria and his nominees had been revoked by execution of later proxies by the same personnel. The proxies or their certified copies can cause no prejudice except that the appellants may want to withhold the documentary evidence from the court at the trail. The direction for the issue of certified copies by the Registrar and upheld by the learned single judge under orders in appeal makes no decision affecting the merits of the suit. It does not affect any vital or valuable right of the appellant except the procedural irregularity, if any, of issuing certified copies of documents contained in the summoned record of the suit in which the plaintiff is not a party.

15. Section 176 of the Companies Act, 1956, provides that any member of the company entitled to attend and vote at a meeting of the company shall be entitled to appoint another person (whether a member or not) as his proxy to attend and vote instead of himself. Sub-section (7) of section 176 provides that every member entitled to vote at a meeting of the company or on any resolution to be moved thereat shall be entitled during the period beginning twenty-four hours before the time fixed for the commencement of the meeting and ending with the conclusion of the meeting, to inspect the proxies lodged at any time during the business hours of the company, provided not less than three days' notice in writing of the intention so to inspect is given to the company. The statutory provisions make it clear that proxies deposited with a company are open to inspection and there is no secrecy either in the signatures or in the other particulars contained in the instrument of proxy. A proxy can at any time be revoked. As a rule, a proxy is not revoked unless written notice of the revocation has been received by the company. The case of the plaintiff is that the proxies executed in favor of Dr. Rajaram Jaipuria and his nominees had been revoked by execution of later proxies by the same person. The proxies or their certified copies can cause no prejudice except that the appellants may want to withhold the documentary evidence from the court at the trial. The direction for the issue of certified copies by the Registrar and upheld by the learned single judge under orders in appeal makes no decision affecting the merits of the suit. It does not affect any vital or valuable right of the appellant except the procedural irregularity, if any, of issuing certified copies of documents contained in the summoned record of the suit in which the plaintiff is not a party.