Supreme Court: Joint Disciplinary Proceedings Not Mandatory in Cases Involving Multiple Officers  ||  Supreme Court: Transferred Students Cannot Claim Government Fees After College Loses Recognition  ||  Supreme Court: Arbitration Clause Applies When Earlier Agreement is Imported “Body and Soul”  ||  J&K&L High Court: Seasonal Labourers Cannot Be Regularised Amid Government’s Blanket Ban  ||  Delhi High Court: Silence Amid Sustained Vilification May Undermine Public Confidence In Judiciary  ||  Calcutta HC Stays Eastern Railway Eviction Drive Affecting Around 6,000 Slum Dwellers Near Station  ||  J&K&L HC: Repeated Arrests U/S 107 Crpc After UAPA Bail Can be Fresh PSA Detention Grounds  ||  Del HC: Arrest Memo Listing Only Reasons Cannot Substitute Person-Specific Grounds of Arrest  ||  SC: Hostile Witness Testimony Can Support Acquittal as Well, Not Only Conviction  ||  SC: Appointing Candidates on Contract Against Advertised Regular Posts is Patently Illegal    

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