Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha Ltd v Tomar (No 2)

The matter involved Ananda Marga Pracaraka Samgha Ltd, a company limited by guarantee operating to propagate the ideals, philosophy and practice of the Ananda Marga religion, and several defendants who were former directors of the company. The dispute centred on the validity of resolutions to remove the plaintiff directors, the identity of the company's members, and the requirements for membership. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, assisted by others, had taken actions detrimental to the company, including diverting its mail, redirecting traffic from its websites, copying its seal, withholding its corporate contact list, competing with its activities, and breaching directors’ duties and statutory provisions. The court was required to decide whether to grant further injunctive relief and whether an external administrator was necessary for the interim management of the company.

The court found that the plaintiffs had established a serious issue to be tried concerning the validity of the resolutions to remove the plaintiff directors and the identity of the company's members. The court was satisfied that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if the defendants were not restrained from interfering with the conduct of the company's business and making or varying contracts or arrangements on its behalf. Consequently, the court granted the relief sought by the plaintiffs and dismissed the defendants’ notice of motion. The court also ordered that the second and third plaintiffs be recorded as directors and mandated further mediation between the parties. Additionally, the court directed the defendants to take several specific actions, including refraining from using the company seal and mail, not using the Ananda Mela Contact List, and not interfering with the conduct of the company's business by the second and third plaintiffs.

The court's decision underscored the importance of protecting the company's assets and interests while the litigation proceeded and ensured that the defendants could not further undermine the company's operations. The orders provided a framework for the interim management of the company, aimed at preserving its integrity and preventing further harm.