Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment  ||  SC: Later Sanction Requirement Won’t Invalidate Cognizance Taken When No Prior Bar Existed  ||  SC: Documents Not Admitted by an Employee in an Enquiry Must be Proved Through Witnesses  ||  Delhi HC: MHA Has Authority to Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings Against AGMUT IAS Officers  ||  MP HC: Financial Hardship or Mere Allegations of Lawyer’s Negligence Cannot Excuse Delayed Appeal  ||  Patna HC: Blanket Approach of Denying Public Employment to Individuals Named in an FIR is Unfair  ||  Kerala HC: Repeated Possession of Even Small Quantities of Narcotic Drugs Can Invoke KAAPA  ||  Calcutta HC: Employers May Deduct Penal Rent From Gratuity of Employees Refusing to Vacate Quarters  ||  Calcutta High Court: ECI Not Singling Out Bengal, More Transfers in Other Poll-Bound States    

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