this court, the respondents proceeded to issue notices by enclosing proxy forms.
13. In view of the subsequent developments which took place in the matter
statement under section 393 of the Companies Act, 1956, and the form of proxy. The notice for the meeting was also published in one issue ... scrutiny and counting of votes. Proxy forms were also verified and, after scrutiny was completed, a report was made at 11.45 p.m. The said
first respondent clearly say that only Table A in the modified form alone would apply. In paragraph 27 of the reply affidavit, it is stated ... vote of 7,392 votes. There is no mention about any proxy at all in the minutes of the meeting. In the circumstances
B. Srinivasa Reddy vs Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage ... on 28 August, 2006
Equivalent
Muni Suvrat-Swami Jain S.M.P. Sangh vs Arun Nathuram Gaikwad & Ors on
S. Varadarajan vs Venkateswara Solvent Extraction (P.) ... on 12 May, 1992
Equivalent citations: [1994]80COMPCAS693
V.G. Balasundaram And Others vs New Theatres Carnatic Talkies Pvt. Ltd. ... on 12 December
Mohanram Sastry And Others vs Swadharma Swarajya Sangha And Others on 22 February, 1995
Equivalent
