Mumbai: On Friday, the Bombay high court adjourned the hearing on Invesco’s plea that challenged the injunction order of the single judge bench of the same court. The next hearing will be held on 29 November.
Invesco, the largest shareholder in Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (Zeel) had approached the court on Thursday to challenge the injunction order passed by the bench in a petition filed by Zeel against the investor.
The court had ruled in favour of Zeel granting it temporary relief against the requisition notice by Invesco to call for an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) of shareholders to pass a resolution to remove the sitting board of directors and appoint a new board.
The Zeel-Invesco tussle began when the media company’s two top investors Invesco Developing Markets Fund and OFI Global China Fund LLC who combined own 18 per cent stake in the company had sent a requisition notice to the company on 11 September to call an EGM even after two weeks, the investors moved to the NCLT, citing provisions of company law, according to which the company is bound to call for an EGM within a specific number of days, if stakeholder demanding it owns more than 10 per cent of the company.
The investors had also sought the removal of long-standing directors and close associates of the Chandra family from the board. The two independent directors Ashok Kurien and Manish Chokhani have already submitted their resignations.
The investors moved to have six nominees appointed to the board of Zeel, which included Surendra Singh Sirohi, Naina Krishna Murthy, Rohan Dhamija, Aruna Sharma, Srinivasa Rao Addepali and Gaurav Mehta as independent directors of the board for a term up to five consecutive years. The notice was received by Zeel on 12 September, and it informed the stock exchanges on 13 September, adding that the appointments are subject to approval by ministry of information and broadcasting (MIB).
Zeel refused to conduct the EGM citing ‘shareholders interest’ and moved to Bombay high court on 2 October seeking to declare the requisition notice as "illegal and invalid."
