Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. So far as the sixth and seventh objections are concerned, according to the objectors, in terms of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 391, apart from majority in number representing 3/4ths in value majority in members voting in favour of the resolution is necessary, it is necessary that majority of the members present and voting either in person or by proxy should also vote in favour of the resolution, then only a resolution can be said to have been passed. According to the objectors, in the meeting, 114 members were present in person/proxy, 53 of these members/proxies voted in favour of the resolution, 46 members/proxies voted against the resolution, 15 votes cast were found to be invalid. According to the objectors, for all the 15 votes which have been declared invalid, the reason has not been disclosed for holding them invalid. But in so far as the shareholder Illa Chandulal Jhaveri is concerned, the vote is declared invalid but in the scrutineers' report, no reason is given. It was also pointed out that some persons have voted more than once. According to the objectors, this is also invalid. The petitioners therefore have filed a detailed affidavit of Shri V. N. Deodhar, scrutineer. In so far as the objection that certain shareholders as per the scrutineers' report have voted more than once is concerned, it is pointed out that when shares are held jointly either with any one or more joint names being different or the order of the joint names differing, the same are given different folio numbers and are treated as different numbers and therefore, all such joint holders have been treated as separate and distinct members for the purpose of computing the number of members present and voting at the meeting. The scrutineers have admitted that while doing so, mistake in one case has occurred inasmuch as at serial Nos. 20 and 110, though two persons hold shares in separate folios, they are joint holders, however on scrutiny it was found that they are the same and therefore, there is a mistake committed in relation to one vote. It is explained that in each case, the scrutineers have given reason for invalidating a vote. In so far as the vote of Smt. Illa Chandulal Jhaveri is concerned, that vote was held to be invalid as remarks were written on the ballot paper. After going through the detailed affidavit and the documents produced with that affidavit, I find that mistake in relation to one vote has been admitted by the petitioners. Therefore, the number of members voting in favour of the resolution has to be reduced by one. I also find that the scrutineers have committed an error in holding the vote of Smt. Illa C. Jhaveri as invalid because in the present voting, there is no concept of secrecy of votes and therefore, merely because something is written on the ballot paper, the vote could not have been invalidated. The said Smt. Illa C. Jhaveri has voted against the resolution, therefore, the number of members voting against the resolution would go up from 46 to 47 and the number of members voting in favour of the resolution will come down from 53 to 52. So far as the aspect of double voting is concerned, in my opinion, as the votes are taken foliowise and as proxies are allowed, such double voting can take place and it is in accordance with law. For example, if one share folio is held by A, B and C and the other folio is held by A, D and E and by both the folio holders, A is authorised to vote, then A will vote twice but in one case, he will vote in his own right as a member and in other case, he may be entitled also to vote in his own right as a joint shareholder, but he can also vote because a proxy is given in his favour. According to the Act, a proxy can be given even to a non-member, therefore the two other joint holders could give proxy in favour of one of them and because that member votes twice, in my opinion, it cannot be said that it is against the law. The petitioners have placed on record for information as to what way the voters, whose votes have been declared invalid, have voted. A perusal of that document shows that out of 15 voters whose votes have been declared invalid, six have voted in favour of the resolution and nine have voted against the resolution. If all these votes are taken to be valid, then also there would be majority in favour of the resolution. In my opinion, therefore, this objection also does not have any substance and has to be rejected.