Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)People'S Union Of Civil Liberties ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 13 March, 2003
In this connection, he has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in
People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) Vs. Union of India, (2003) 4
SCC 399. Referring to section 108 of the Companies Act, 2013 which says
that the Central Government may prescribe the class or classes of
companies and the manner in which a member may exercise his right to
vote by electronic means, he submits that this provision is vitiated by
complete abdication of legislative power if not for excessive delegation.
Mahe Beach Trading Co. & Etc vs Union Territory Of Pondicherry And Ors on 4 April, 1996
He
has placed reliance on Mahe Beach Trading Co. Vs. Union Territory of
Pondicherry, (1996) 3 SCC 741 . Therefore, the present is a fit case where
Court may examine the aforesaid provision in the context of remote e-
voting provided by respondent No.4 for the 96 th AGM scheduled on
21.12.2020 and stay the process in the interregnum.
Pioneer Urban Land And Infrastructure ... vs Union Of India on 9 August, 2019
6. Basic contention of Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud is that under
Rule 20(4)(vi) of the Companies (Management and Administration) Rules,
2014, a company like the petitioner which provides facility to its members
to exercise voting by electronic means shall comply with the procedure
mandated thereunder including the facility for remote e-voting to be kept
open for not less than three days and which shall close at 5.00 p.m. on the
date preceding the date of the general meeting. This provision he contends
is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it is manifestly
arbitrary and irrational. E-voting is completed prior to the date on which
AGM is to be held. In other words members of the company would have to
cast their votes by remote e-voting without listening to the view points of
the candidates in the AGM. This is manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable,
he contends referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Pioneer
Urban Land and Infrastructure Limited Vs. Union of India, (2019) 8 SCC
416, more particularly to paragraph 49 thereof. The test to be applied as to
whether a particular provision violates Article 14 or not is to see whether it
is manifestly arbitrary or not i.e. whether it is excessive, disproportionate or
without adequate determining principle. His further contention is that the
said provision also violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution inasmuch as
BGP. 3 of 6
WPL-7265-20.doc.
Section 108 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1