B S MEHTA Vs. POLAR MARMO AGGLOMERATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [Ed. facts : Some shareholders (more than 10% value) requisitioned a meeting for passing a resolution for removing plaintiff from Board of Directors. Resolution was passed on 12.4.90. Pff. filed suit and applied for interin injunction. At the hearing Deft's Counsel made a statement that impugned resolution of 12.11.90 had been superceded by circular resolutions of 7/8th Dec., 90 and pff. had been duly served of these and his suit had because infructuous. Pff. averred that for new resolution fresh requisition was necersary]. After detailing above, judgment is :

(2.) Apparently, what has happened, is that the deft. company has chosen to rely upon the requisitions which had been received by it earlier, its Board of Directors has now purported to pass resolution by circulation, after the statement was made in Court, and issued some notice to the plaintiff. This notice, according to the deft. was served upon the plaintiff's residence on 7.12.1990 or 8.12.1990, service being effected on a domestic servant of the plaintiff at his residence. Mr. Beg says such service is proper service. He relies upon Articles of Association of the Company, which require effecting service of notice at the residence of the directors.

(3.) In my view, in as much as it was known to the persons concerned in Court, when the matter was being heard on 5th and 6th Dec., 1990 that the plaintiff had to go to Indore to attend the marriage of his son, such service would not be proper service, in the facts and circumstances of this case, as the service is effected on the plaintiff's domestic servant, during the absence of the plaintiff.