Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.72 seconds)
Omdayal Educational And Research ... vs Shyam Sundar Agarwal And Ors on 9 September, 2025 cites

The Punjab Produce And Trading Co. ... vs Harsh Vardhan Lodha And Ors on 22 September, 2023

(iv) Judgment and Order dated 22nd September, 2023 passed in G.A. No. 4 of 2023 filed in CS 306 of 2022 [The Punjab Produce and Trading Co. Private Limited and Ors. vs. Harsh Vardhan Lodha & Ors.] On behalf of proforma defendant no.5 and 6it is submitted by relying upon a video clip of the said meeting which is said to have been disclosed by the plaintiffs in a pen drive annexed to the application in a sealed cover and played in Court that it is apparent therefrom that the meeting did not actually take place on 18th August, 2025. There was no discussion on any of the agenda. The defendant no.1 without consent of the other members of the governing body appointed the defendant no.4 as the Chairman of the said meeting which is contrary to the regulations of the said society. A prepared resolution brought to the venue were only read out at the meeting to project that the resolutions have been passed by raising of hands by the defendant no.1, 2 and 4 and thereby adopted. In the said meeting an outsider was present which is contrary of the regulations of the said society and as such the said meeting is invalid on that ground alone. Furthermore there were 13 three members who had admittedly attended the said meeting and had objected to the resolutions said to have been adopted in the said meeting by not raising their hands or voting in favour of the same. There were as such three members voting in favour of the resolutions allegedly adopted in the said meeting while three were against the same. The resolutions, therefore, cannot be construed to have been passed by the majority and as such void. The contention that the President had the casting vote which on being exercised had the effect of passing the resolutions according to the said defendants cannot also be found from the video clip of the said meeting. The President (defendant no.1), therefore, did not exercise his casting vote and as such the resolutions cannot and could not have been passed or adopted at the said meeting. The meeting is illegal and invalid, the resolutions adopted therein are illegal and void. These resolutions cannot and could not be construed to have been adopted in a valid meeting for which the same can be either enforced or acted upon. The minutes of the meeting, therefore, should be set aside and/or quashed and as an ad interim measure the same should be stayed. It is further submitted by the proforma defendant nos.5 and 6 that as a Treasurer the proforma defendant no.5 had the authority to sign the cheques along with the Secretary of the said society being the plaintiff no.2. The cheques prepared by the society for payment of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the educational institutes after being signed by the proforma defendant no.5 were sent to the defendant no.1 but was not counter-signed. In a designed manner in collusion and conspiracy 14 with each other the defendant nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 want to eliminate the plaintiff no.2, the proforma defendant nos.5 and 6 from society. As a prelude to such designed act the said defendants have changed the authorized signatories so that any amount at the whims of the defendant no.1 can be approved, sanctioned and paid without there being any resistance from the side of either the proforma defendant no.5 or the plaintiff no.2 even if such payments are found to be illegal and wrongful.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A Mukherjee - Full Document

Nibro Ltd. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. on 6 March, 1990

2. AIR 1991 Del. 25 (Nibro Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.) Relying upon the aforesaid two judgments, it is submitted by the said defendants that the plaintiff no. 2 complaint of at the highest irregularities and not illegality. Alleged irregularity in connection with the meeting cannot be a ground for which an interlocutory injunction sought for has to be granted. The plaintiffs are, therefore, not entitled to any order of injunction against the resolutions taken at the meeting of the governing body of the society on 18th August, 2025. That apart and in any event the suit could not have been instituted by the plaintiff no. 2 on behalf of plaintiff no. 1 as there is no resolution authorizing the plaintiff no. 2 to sign and verify the plaint or institute the suit only on that ground no ad interim order can be passed at this stage.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 209 - Full Document
1