Delhi HC: Workman Cannot Claim Section 17(B) of the ID Act Wages after Reaching Superannuation Age  ||  Allahabad HC: Caste by Birth Remains Unchanged Despite Conversion or Inter-Caste Marriage  ||  Delhi High Court: Tweeting Corruption Allegations Against Employer Can Constitute Misconduct  ||  Delhi High Court: State Gratuity Authorities Lack Jurisdiction over Multi-State Establishments  ||  Kerala High Court: Arrest Grounds Need Not Mention Contraband Quantity When No Seizure is Made  ||  SC: Silence During Investigation Does Not Ipso Facto Mean Non-Cooperation to Deny Bail  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Cannot Re-Examine Answer Keys Even in Judicial Service Exams  ||  SC: Central Government Employees under CCS Rules are Not Covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act  ||  Supreme Court Holds CrPC Principles on Discharge and Framing of Charges Continue under BNSS  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Must Independently Assess SC/ST Act Charges in Section 14A Appeals    

Royal Calcutta Golf Club v. Lalit Kumar Jhalaria - (High Court of Calcutta) (12 Aug 2015)

Mere reference of numerous members not having the same interest does not raise presumption of non-maintainability

MANU/WB/0657/2015

Company

In a case where the Petitioner, with over 3,000 members, alleged non-maintainability of a suit filed by one member disputing a resolution taken in an annual general meeting, the Court found in favour of the solitary member. It noted that mere reference of more than 3000 members did not raise a presumption that the suit was not maintainable in absence of leave: 'every presumption should be made in favour of the existence of the suit rather than exclusion of jurisdiction'. The Court added that remedy to bring an end to oppression and mismanagement on the part of the controlling shareholders was provided under the Companies Act, 1956.

Relevant : Order I Rule 8 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Act Bhagwan Das v. Goswami Brijesh Kumarji MANU/RH/0002/1983 Jhajharia Bros. Ltd. vs. Sholapoor Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. MANU/WB/0168/1940

Tags : COMPANY   JURISDICTION   SINGLE MEMBER   COMPLAINT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved