The first essential requisite of a valid meeting is that it should be called by a proper authority. Obviously the only proper authority is the Board of directors, except when the meeting has, in the event of default by the directors, been called by the requisitionists or by the Tribunal.
In the case of Harben v Phillip:Certain directors held a meeting of the Board but they prevented some lawfully constituted directors from attending the meeting. A quorum was, however, present. It was held that as the meeting of the Board was unlawful, the notice convening the general meeting also became invalid.
The second requirement of a valid meeting is that a proper notice of the meeting should be given to the members. Notice should be given to every member of the company. Deliberate omission to give notice to a single member may invalidate the meeting, 46 although an accidental omission to give notice to, or non-receipt of it by, a member will not be fatal. [S. 101(4)].
Notice should be in writing and must be given 21 days before the date of the meeting. “21 days” are to be computed from the date of receipt of the notice by members and the notice shall be deemed to have been received at the expiration of 48 hours from the time of posting.
NVR Nagappa Chettiar v Madras Race Club is an illustration in point: Notices were posted on October 16, for a meeting to be held on November 7. The notice was held to be short by one day as in computing the interval of 21 days the date of posting and date of meeting should be excluded.
Where notices were posted during a period of postal strike and decidedly would not have been served upon members, the court said that the strike was in itself an evidence of the fact that there would not be effective service and, therefore, the presumption of deemed service was ruled out as held in the case of Bradman vs Trinity Estate Ltd 1989.
Notice should specify the place and day and hour of the meeting and the meeting to be valid must be held at the place and time specified, except, perhaps, in a situation that arose in Rao Bahadur MRS Rathnavelusami v MRS Manickavelu Chettiar 1951
On the failure of the directors of a company to call a meeting on a requisition, the requisitionists themselves sent a notice to all the members for a meeting to be held at the registered office of the company. But the managing director locked the premises of the registered office. It was held that a meeting held at some other place and the resolutions passed thereat were valid.
Again, the notice must contain a statement of the business to be transacted at the meeting. Section 102 puts businesses into two categories, namely:
Further issue of capital, being a special business, required to be mentioned in the notice. Not to have done so rendered the meeting, its notice and the further issue to be invalid.
If any special business is to be transacted at an annual meeting, a statement to that effect must be annexed to the notice calling the meeting. The statement must set out all the material facts concerning each item of the special business and should also disclose the interest of any director or other key managerial personnel in the matter. “Notice must give a sufficiently full and frank disclosure to the shareholders of the facts upon which they are asked to vote.” The purpose of the explanatory statement is that the members should be informed of the nature of the business to be transacted at the meeting.? Section 102 specially provides about the contents of the statement.
A statement setting out the following material facts concerning each item of special business to be transacted at the meeting has to be annexed to the notice calling the meeting:
The notice must be frank , clear and satisfactory as held in the case of Naravanlal Bansilal v Maneckji Petit Mfg Co Ltd:1931
A company had managing agents. It wanted to adopt a new set of articles changing the terms of their appointment. The notice convening a meeting of the shareholders for the purpose set out the proposed special resolutions, but did not give particulars of the important changes to be effected. Accordingly, the resolutions passed on the basis of this notice were held invalid.
Penal consequences of default [S. 102(5)].-For any default in complying with the provisions of the section, every promoter, director or manager or other key personnel who is in default is punishable with fine extending to Rs 50,000 or five times the amount of benefit accruing to the person concerned whichever is more.
Another requirement of a valid meeting is the presence of a quorum.
Quorum means the minimum number of members that must be present at the meeting. It is generally for the articles to provide what number of members will constitute a quorum.
But Section 103 provides that unless the articles provide for a large number five members personally present the he case of a public company and two in the case of a private company shall be the quorum for a meeting. If within half an hour from the time of a meeting a quorum is not present the meeting will stand dissolved if it was called upon requisition.
But in other cases, the meeting is automatically adjourned to re-assemble on the same day in the next week.”
And if at the reassembled meeting also a quorum is not present within half an hour, as many members as are actually present shall constitute the quorum. The crucial problem in such a case is that if only one member turns up, will the meeting be valid, or, in other words, whether a meeting attended by only one member can be called a meeting at all. This was the question in Sharp v Dawes: 1876:
There were several shareholders in a company. A meeting was called for the purpose of making a call. Only one shareholder attended the meeting. He, however, held the proxies of other shareholders. He took the chair and passed a resolution for making a call and then proposed and passed a vote of thanks. In giving judgment in the Court of Appeal, said: “The word ‘meeting’ prima facie means a coming meaning of the Act.” together of more than one person.
His appointment is usually regulated by the articles of association. But if there is nothing in the articles “the members personally present at the meet. ing shall elect one of themselves to be the Chairman”
If the Chairman unjustly and without the consent of shareholders stops the meeting, it is perfectly within the powers of the meeting to elect another Chairman and conduct the remaining unfinished business.
A person who is appointed by a member to attend and vote at a meeting in the absence of the member at the meeting is termed as proxy. Thus proxy is an agent of the member appointing him.
The term ‘proxy’ is also used to refer to the instrument by which a person is appointed as proxy. Section 105 of the Companies Act, 2013 provides that a member, who is entitled to attend to vote, can appoint another person as a proxy to attend and vote at the meeting on his behalf. This section also provides the manner of appointing proxy. The provisions are as follows.
Proxy clause with reasonable prominence [Section 105(2)]: Every notice calling a meeting of a company which has a share capital, or the articles of which provide for voting by proxy at the meeting, should carry with reasonable prominence, a statement that a member entitled to attend and vote is entitled to appoint a proxy, or, where that is allowed, one or more proxies, to attend and vote instead of himself, and that a proxy need not be a member.
Position of OPC in India under the Companies Act, 2013: The Companies Act, 2013 classifies companies on the basis of their number of members into One Person Company, private company and public company. As stated above, a private company requires a minimum of2 members. In other words, a One Person Company is a kind of private company having only one member.
Accordingly, in TH Vakil v Bombay Presidency Radio Club: 1945 Where at a meeting of a company the Chairman wrongfully ruled an amendment out of order, it was held that the subsequent proceedings relating to that particular motion were invalidated.
After a resolution has been discussed it is put to vote. Voting right means the right of a member of a company to vote in any meeting of the company or by means of postal ballot. [S. 2(93)] Every holder of equity shares has the right to vote.
By show of hands [S. 107].– In the first instance, voting on a resolution takes place by show of hands. On a show of hands, one member has one vote. A declaration by the Chairman on a show of hands that a resolution has or has not been carried is conclusive, except when a poll is demanded or when as held by the Calcutta High Court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd vs. Nil Kamal Chakravorty:1937.
A declaration by the Chairman would be conclusive only if he does not find by his declaration the figures for or against the resolution. But where the Chairman finds the figures and erroneously in point of law holds that a resolution has been duly passed, the resolution cannot be said to have been passed according to law.
______________________________________________________________
© VIDHOON All Rights Reserved