Madras HC: Police Superintendent not Liable For IO’s Delay In Filing Chargesheet or Closure Report  ||  Supreme Court: Provident Fund Dues Have Priority over a Bank’s Claim under the SARFAESI Act  ||  SC Holds Landowners Who Accept Compensation Settlements Cannot Later Seek Statutory Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Endless Investigations and Long Delays in Chargesheets Can Justify Quashing  ||  Delhi HC: Arbitrator Controls Evidence and Appellate Courts Cannot Reassess Facts  ||  Delhi HC: ED Can Search Anyone Holding Crime Proceeds, not Just Those Named in Complaint  ||  Delhi HC: ED Can Search Anyone Holding Crime Proceeds, not Just Those Named in Complaint  ||  Delhi HC: Economic Offender Cannot Seek Travel Abroad For Medical Treatment When Available In India  ||  SC: Governors and President Have No Fixed Timeline To Assent To Bills; “Deemed Assent” is Invalid  ||  SC: Assigning a Decree For Specific Performance of a Sale Agreement Does Not Require Registration    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved