Delhi HC: Saying “Maro Sale Ko” During a Fight Alone Does Not by Itself Establish Intent to Kill  ||  Delhi HC Ordered Removal of Fake News About Judges’ London Badminton Event, Restrained its Sharing  ||  Bombay HC: Calling Police over Routine Transfers or External Complaints is Misconduct  ||  Delhi HC Upheld EC’s Decision Banning Political Ads in the Delhi Metro During Model Code of Conduct  ||  Delhi HC: In the Telegram Case Entire Social Media Platforms Can Be Blocked U/S 69A of the IT Act  ||  Supreme Court: Pedestrians' Right to Footpaths Cannot be Overridden by Motorists  ||  Supreme Court: Financier Cannot Seek Insurance For a Vehicle Surrendered by its Owner  ||  Madhya Pradesh High Court: Victims Must be Given a Hearing Even Before Closure Report Rejection  ||  Delhi HC: Payment of ‘Pagri’ Does Not Render Tenancy Non-Terminable, Allowing Eviction  ||  Ker HC Examined Whether Electro-Homeopathy Can be Practised Without Registration under Medical Laws    

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