ASHOK MITTAL Vs. RAM PARSHOTAM MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Order 39 Rule 1and2 CPC, Plaintiff has sought an interim order restraining Defendants to consider and act upon Agenda items No. 3 and 4 in the forthcoming meeting of the Board of Defendant No. 5 Company.

(2.) PLAINTIFF is one of the Directors of the Defendant No. 5 Company while Defendants No. 1 and 2 are also Directors on Board of the Company. Defendant No. 2 is wife of Defendant No. 1, Defendants No. 4and5 are additional directors. The notice of Board Meeting was issued on 17. 12. 2007 and Agenda items No. 3and4 are as under: 3. To consider reappointment of Shri R. P. Mittal as Managing Director of the company for a further period of 5 years from 1. 1. 2008. 4. To fix date, time and place for convening Extra Ordinary General Meeting to approve the reappointment of Shri R. P. Mittal as Managing Director.

(3.) PLAINTIFF seeks injunction against carrying on meeting agenda in respect of above-mentioned two items on the ground that Defendant No. 1, who is sought to be appointed as Managing Director of Defendant No. 5 Company was not qualified in terms of provisions of Companies Act. Plaintiff has relied upon section 267 and 316 of the Companies Act to canvass that Defendant No. 1 was not competent enough to be appointed as Managing Director. Sections 267 and 316 of the Companies Act read as under: