There were 5400 shares in Fiji Shuttle Company Ltd and the plaintiff, Mr. Naidu, owned 2404 of them. The company was in the business of purifying and storing liquids. The constitution of the company stated that only a three-quarter majority could remove the directors. It said the general power of management was vested in the directors subject to such regulations as might from time to time be made by extraordinary resolution. They were also explicitly allowed to sell company property. The words regulations referred to the articles of association. So, the articles could be changed by a three-quarter majority of votes. It did not say anything about issuing directions to the directors.

Mr. Naidu wanted the company to sell its assets to another company. At a meeting he got 3004 of the shares to vote in favor of such a resolution, with his friends. The directors were opposed to it. They declined to comply with the resolution. So, Mr. Naidu brought this action in the name of the company, against the company directors.

With reference to Companies Act of Fiji 2015, explain whether the court ruling would be in favor of the shareholders or the company directors