At a General Meeting of RigVed Ltd, a resolution was passed as an ordinary resolution, whereas it is required to be passed as a 'special resolution' under the Companies Act, 2013. Ved, an individual shareholder of the Co

The following are the similar relevant cases for the given situation: A shareholder can sue if an act requires a special majority but is passed by a simple majority. Simple or rigid formalities are to be observed if the majority wants to give validity to an act which purports to impede the interest of minority. An individual shareholder has the right of action to restrain the company from acting on a special resolution to which the insufficient notice is served Baillie v. Oriental Telephone and Electric Co. Ltd., (1915) 1 Ch. 503 (C. A.) ; refer also NagappaChettiar v. Madras Race Club, 1 M.L.J. 662 . Individual membership rights cannot be invaded by the majority of shareholders. He is entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to his status as a member. An individual shareholder can insist on the strict compliance with the legal rules and statutory provisions. Provisions in the memorandum and the articles are mandatory in nature and cannot be waived by a bare majority of shareholders [ Salmon v. Quin and Aztens, (1909) A.C. 442 ]. In Nagappa Chettiar v. Madras Race Club, (1949) 1 M.L.J. 662 at 667 , it was observed by the Court that "An individual shareholder is entitled to enforce his individual rights against the company, such as, his right to vote, the right to have his vote recorded, or his right to stand as a director of a company at an election. In view of the case laws discussed above, it may be said that contention of Ved is tenable.