Santosh Hari Gavas And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 21 October, 2021
20. The aforesaid pronouncement was followed by the learned
single Judge in the case of Lourdes Shetty (supra). In the later
case, the petitioners therein had convened the AGM on 4 th August,
2001, in conformity with the statutory prescription. However, on
that day only one subject could be discussed and subsequent
meeting could not be proceeded with, because of the disturbance
created and, thereafter, the meeting had to be called off. When the
petitioners therein were sought to be disqualifed for default in
convening the adjourned meeting, the learned single Judge, after
opining that the sub rule (8) of Rule 60 had no application to the
facts of the said case, held that the petitioners could not have been
disqualifed. The observations in paragraph Nos. 20 and 21 are
material and hence extracted below: