: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.289 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2952 OF 2007 IN S.C.SUIT NO.3104 OF 2007 Mrs.Poonam Kumar ....Appellant V/s. Ace Investment Services (I) Ltd. & Ors.....Respondents Mr.Atul Rajadhaksha, Senior Counsel with Mr.Ashwin Shete with Ms.Megha Sen i/b Khaitan & Jayakar for the Appellant. Mr.Haresh Jagtiani, Senior Counsel with Anil D’Souza, Mr.Siddesh Bhole and Ms.Vandana Mehta i/b M/s.Haresh Jagtiani & Associates for Respondent Nos.2 to 8. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 25TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. : 1. The impugned order warrants no interference. The Plaintiff holds 0.5% of share of Defendant No.1. In the suit the Plaintiff has challenged an Extra-Ordinary Meeting of Respondent No.1 held on 4.6.2007. It is contended that there was no quorum for the meeting. Article 90 of the Article of Association of Defendant No.1 requires a quorum of five persons. It was admitted that if the attendance of one B.Shah is not challenged successfully as the authorized representative of Defendant No.3 the quorum : 2 : was adequate. 2. It was contended that a fax message on 10.5.2007 issued to Defendant No.3 was in fact never sent. It is difficult in the facts and circumstances to hold in the Appellant’s favour in this regard conclusively without any evidence. Further in any event a general resolution of Defendant No.3 was passed on 4.1.2005 authorizing the said B.Shah to attend the meetings on behalf of Defendant No.3. 3. As stated above, the Plaintiff holds 0.5% shares in Defendant No.1. It appears that the disputes really lie elsewhere namely in the matrimonial disputes between the Appellant and Respondent No.6. 4. In the circumstances, the Appeal from Order is dismissed. The order dated 29.5.2007 to continue till 30.6.2008.