Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

53.E. That despite the request of the plaintiffs to appoint impartial scrutinizers, vide their letter dated 22.12.1997, the plaintiff No. 1 Company was informed of the fact that the adjourned 27th AGM would be held on 16.1.1998. This is indicative of the fact that the concerned defendants were manipulating the proxy votes and ballot papers specially because they had refused all requests and demands of inspection of the votes raised by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also apprehend that the counting of votes shall not be done correctly and even valid votes cast by the plaintiffs would be invalidated on frivolous grounds.

53.F. The modus operandi adopted by defendants 1 to 10 excluding defendant No. 5 is that they have rejected the votes of plaintiffs and other Financial Institutions which would have ensured a numerical victory in favour of the plaintiffs. Further, the defendants 1 to 10 except defendant No. 5 have fabricated, forged and/or manipulated proxies of shareholders from the public who represent approximately 27% voting in favour of Gaurav Swarup. Thus, while a clean voting of about 49%, including 33% of plaintiff No. 1, has been rejected, proxies of about 8.9% votes in favour of Gaurav Swaroop which is highly suspect, have been accepted. During the Local Commissioner proceedings held on 20.1.1998 when the results were published in the newspapers, the Local Commissioner and the Advocates of the parties were informed, by the defendant No. 1, that out of 62 existing votes, 21 were rejected. Amongst the rejected ballots it is important to note that ballots of following persons/entities which had voted in favour of plaintiffs had been rejected :