ASANSOL ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO Vs. CHUNILAL DAW
LAWS(CAL)-1970-9-15
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on September 15,1970

ASANSOL ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO Appellant
VERSUS
CHUNILAL DAW Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS appeal is at the instance of some of the share-holders of the Asansol Electric Supply Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Company)and it arises out of a suit instituted by re appellants who were the plaintiffs against the Directors and. one Jaydev Daw, the son of the Managing Director of the Company and the Company as defendants, inter alia, for certain declarations and for permanent injunction. The suit was brought by the appellants as shareholders on behalf of themselves and as representing the other share-holders of the Company, under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) THE company is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The object of the company is to supply electricity in the town of Asansol and its suburbs as specified in clause (3) of the Memorandum of Association. The company is the holder of a licence granted under the Indian Electricity Act. The subscribed and paid up share capital of the company is Rs. 2,10,000/- divided into 21,000 ordinary shares of Rs. 10/- each, and Rs. 40,000/- divided into 4,000 preference shares of Rs. 10/- each, The respective shares which are held by the plaintiffs share-holders are 3. 983 ordinary shares and 500 preference share. The plaintiffs between themselves hold more than 10 per cent of the total paid up share capital of the company who was the defendant No. 1 in the suit. The defendant No. 2 Sanatan daw is the Managing Director of the Company and the defendant No. 7, joydey Daw is the son of the defendant No. 2. The dispute between the parties is with regard to the appointment of the defendant No. 7 as the chief Accountant of the Company.
(3.) THE defendant No. 7, Joydev Daw was appointed as the Chief Accountant of the Company on and from June 25, 1960. As the defendant No. 7 is the son of the Managing Director, the defendant no. 2, and the total remuneration of the defendant No. 7 was fixed at Rs. 500/-, a special resolution of the general members according sanction to the appointment of the defendant No. 7 was required under Section 314 (1) of the Act. In terms of the provisions of section 314 (1) of the Act, a special resolution was passed in an Extraordinary general Meeting of the company held on June 25, 1960. By the said special resolution the appointment of the defendant No. 7 Joydev Daw as the chief Accountant of the company on a basic pay of Rs. 350/- and dearness allowance of Rs. 150/- only per month as a permanent incumbent with effect from June 25, 1960, was sanctioned. The plaintiffs do not dispute the initial appointment of the defendant No. 7 as accorded by the said special resolution of the company as legal and valid.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.