9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (2) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Patiala, in the pending appeal arising out of Civil Suit No. 33 of 1994 pending in the court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Patiala. Initially, Civil Revision No. 1109 of 1994 directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Patiala, was filed in this court, but before the matter could be finally decided, Civil Suit No. 460 of 1994 was filed in the court of the Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Rajpura. Since the matter involved was common in both the suits, i.e. , the civil suit out of which Civil Revision No. 1109 of 1994 has arisen and Civil Suit No. 460 of 1994 learned counsel for the parties, on October 17, 1994, stated at the Bar that this court should finally decide the application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 460 of 1994 and also the matter which was pending in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Patiala, arising out of the application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in Civil Suit No. 33 of 1994. They further stated that on decision by this court, the appeal pending before the Additional District Judge would become infructuous. Not only the counsel made a st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gedly held on February 22, 1994, and further restraining defendants Nos. 1 to 9 from acting or holding themselves out as directors of B.S.B. in reliance upon the resolutions purported to be passed in the alleged extraordinary general meeting and further restraining defendants Nos. 1 to 10 from interfering with or obstructing or disputing the acting of defendants Nos. 10 and 16 to 25 as directors of B.S.B. It has been averred in the plaint that B.S.B. is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short, the Companies Act), and has its registered office at Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Bhankerpur, Dera Bassi, District Patiala, Punjab. The main objects of the company, i.e. , B.S.B., are to carry on the business of brewers, distillers, bottlers, wine manufacturers and to prepare, buy, store, sell, distill, manufacture, redistill and deal in all kinds of beers, wine, liquors, etc. B.S.B. was earlier owned by Simbhaoli Industries Pvt. Ltd. (S.I.L. in short). The shareholding position of B.S.B. immediately before the takeover of the same by S.I.L. was as under : "1. Mr. S. Sandhu : 10 equity shares of Rs. 10 ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directors of the company were S/Sh. Pritam Singh Sandhu, Gurmeet Singh Mann, Jagraj Singh Mann and Gurpal Singh. However, after acquiring B.S.B., S.W.C. nominated its employees on the board of directors of B.S.B. Seven additional directors namely S/Sh. Y.P. Sud, T.K. Ramaswamy, M.G. Ramachandran, Madan Mohan Suri, R. Ganesan, A. Roy Chowdhury and S.N. Pandey were appointed on July 8, 1989. The original four directors of the B.S.B. namely S/Sh. Pritam Singh Sandhu, Gurmeet Singh Mann, Jagraj Singh Mann and Gurpal Singh ceased to be the directors with effect from June 27, 1990. It is further averred that presently, the lawfully constituted board of directors of B.S.B. are S/Sh. Sarabhjit Singh, managing director, P.R. Pandya, director (secretary, SKOL Breweries Ltd. a subsidiary of SWC), A.S. Chatterjee, director (manager, SWC), A. Sadasivam, director, (asst. vice-president, SWC), V. Jayaraman, director (general manager, Cruickshank and Co. A subsidiary of S.W.C), Srijit Mullick, director (manager, SWC), M.M. Gupta, director (general manager, SWC), T.K. Ravishanker, director (general manager, SWC), A. Sabharwal, director (general manager, SWC), Rajiv K. Viz, director (deputy general ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the observation that the complaint filed by Arun Kumar Jain is an abuse of process of the court. Arun Kumar Jain also filed a civil suit on February 21, 1994, in the court of Sh. J.S. Bhatia, Sub-Judge, First Class, Rajpura, and tried to obtain an ex parte stay order against all the directors of B.S.B. by misleading the court. However, he failed to do so. Hence, the ex parte stay order was declined on February 21, 1994. The said suit is titled as Arun Kumar Jain v. T.K. Ramaswamy. It has been averred that the said suit has been filed by Arun Kumar Jain to thwart the earlier suit filed by B.S.B. against him. Upon such failure on the very next day, i.e. , February 22, 1994, Arun Kumar Jain got another suit filed purported to be on behalf of B.S.B., the plaintiff in the present suit through one of his associates, J.C. Vohra, which was also filed before Shri J.S. Bhaia, Sub-Judge, First Class. The said suit came up for hearing on February 23, 1994, and a prayer for an ex parte stay order, restraining the defendants therein from interfering in the affairs and management of B.S.B. was made, which too was declined. Thereafter, on March 2, 1994, Arun Kumar Jain, filed another ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directors of Budgam. Utpal Kumar Ganguly was not a director of Budgam ; that the decision to remove the existing directors and appoint new directors was for drastic reconstitution of the board of directors of B.S.B. and amounted to a policy decision of Budgam. Under the orders of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court dated February 22, 1993, Budgam has been specifically directed not to take or execute any policy decision. The said notice dated January 3, 1994, having been issued in the name of Budgam in violation of the order of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court dated February 22, 1993, is illegal and void ; that the alleged notice dated January 27, 1994, issued in the name of Budgam by Utpal Kumar Ganguly as a purported director is again in violation of the order of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court dated February 22, 1993. The said notice dated January 3/January 27, 1994, contained a decision of Budgam to drastically reconstitute the board of directors of B.S.B. which was a matter of policy decision and which Budgam was expressly restrained from taking by the order of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court; that there being no valid notice for convening the extraordinary general meeting of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order for stay of resolutions passed in the extraordinary general meeting dated February 22, 1994, passed by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court and continued the order for stay for a period of two weeks from the said date to enable the appropriate substantive legal proceedings for challenging the said extraordinary general meeting and the resolution passed thereat to be taken in the appropriate court. The plaintiff has, thus, stated that pursuant to the stay order of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff is filing this suit for challenging the alleged extraordinary general meeting and the resolutions passed thereat. The written statement has been filed on behalf of defendant No. 8, namely, Arun Kumar Jain and by defendant No. 15 purported to be on behalf of Budgam. Arun Kumar Jain in his written statement has taken exception to the filing of the suit by Sarbjit Singh, alleging to be the managing director of B.S.B. It has been alleged in the written statement that he has no right, title, interest, authority or competency to institute the suit, and the name of the said company shown as the plaintiff is illegal, unauthorised, wholly without jurisdiction and without authority. It has furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itutes over 99.99% of the equity capital in the said company. These shares were acquired by Budgam on September 27, 1989, and till date the same are owned by Budgam. The original four directors and P.R. Pandya own 10 shares each and nobody else has any share in the said company. It has also been stated that the said company has reconstituted its board of directors in the meeting of the board of directors on February 22, 1994, and since the removed directors were threatening interference in the affairs and management of the said company, the said company filed an injunction suit before the Senior Sub-Judge, Patiala, which is till date pending. Arun Kumar Jain has denied that the management of S.W.C. negotiated the purchase of the said company, as alleged in the plaint. He has also denied that Budgam had no funds to pay the price, though he has admitted that money advanced by Sica Breweries Pvt. Ltd. was a mere intercorporate deposit to Budgam. In para 5 of the written statement, Mr. Jain has given the names of nine persons alleged to be only directors of B.S.B., namely, S/sh. Arun Kumar Jain, T.K. Ramaswamy, M.D. Chhabria, U.K. Ganguly, N.D. Chhabria, Ashok Jain, Shyam Luthria, S.K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocument, wholly contrary to the truth. With reference to the order of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, Arun Kumar Jain has submitted that no order from the Jammu and Kashmir High Court was necessary to have been obtained before exercise of voting rights in Budgam, since liberty to exercise voting rights had been reserved to Budgam by the said order. He has, thus, prayed that the suit filed by B.S.B. be dismissed being misconceived, arbitrary and fraudulent. One S.S. Sanyal, purporting to be director of Budgam, has filed a written statement on behalf of defendant No. 15 which contains almost the identical averments as in the written statement filed by Arun Kumar Jain. The plaintiff, B.S.B., has filed replication to the written statements filed by Arun Kumar Jain, defendant No. 8 and defendant No. 15 wherein the plaintiff has denied the averments made in the written statements and has reiterated the stand taken by it in the plaint. The pleadings in Civil Suit No. 33 of 1994 out of which Civil Revision No. 1109 of 1994 has arisen are not necessary to be mentioned because the plaint and the written statements filed in Civil Suit No. 460 of 1994 cover the controversy raised in Civi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing extent : ( i )The plaintiffs in the suit, like the defendants in the impugned order are also restrained from alienating, selling, altering, transferring or encumbering in any manner, any assets, investment or property of the plaintiff's company. ( ii )The plaintiffs shall not take or execute any policy decision and if the plaintiff company has to exercise any voting right in other company, this right shall be exercised provisionally only and shall remain subject to the orders to be passed ultimately. ( iii )The operative part of the impugned order as also the arrangements made hereinabove shall immediately come to an end on the passing of fresh order by the trial court." The issue as to who is the true owner of Budgam, is pending and hotly disputed before the Jammu and Kashmir court and does not call for consideration in the present proceedings. During the course of arguments of Dr. A.M. Singhvi, senior advocate, who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 460 of 1994 and contesting the respondents in Civil Revision No. 1109 of 1994 and Mr. G. Ramaswami, senior advocate, who argued on behalf of the contesting the defendants in Civil Suit No. 460 of 1994 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, whose violation was complained of in contempt, merely constituted terms of agreement between the parties or whether there was, in addition, the imprimatur of the court placed on it and, whether it was a 'direction' or only an 'observation' of the court. In view of the latter part of para 2( ii ) of the earlier order dated February 22, 1993, the subsequent convening and holding of the extraordinary general meeting of Bhankerpur and the resolution dated February 22, 1994, cannot be said to be a willful disobedience of the said earlier order. 6. We, accordingly, set aside the order dated April 18, 1994, of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in CMP(COA) No. 139 of 1994. We also dismiss the contempt proceedings." Pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court, Civil Suit No. 460 of 1994 has been filed. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, senior advocate, has contended that no extraordinary general meeting of B.S:B. was held on February 22, 1994, and :he minutes, if any, and notices alleged to have been sent under certificate of posting have been manipulated by the defendants. In the alternative, he has contended that the meeting, if any, held was illegal and was in violation of the Jammu and Kashmi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng as to whether the extraordinary general meeting was held, it is necessary to find out first, as to whether at least two shareholders were present in the meeting because a single person cannot constitute a meeting. This proposition is not being disputed by Mr. G. Ramaswami, senior advocate, and rightly so, because in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 1973 edition, "meeting" has been described thus (1) one swallow does not make a summer, nor does the presence of one shareholder constitute a "meeting" ( Sanitary Carbon Co., In re [1877] WN 223). The word "meeting" implies a concurrence, or coming face to face of "at least two persons" (per Coleridge C.J. in Sharp v. Dawes [1876] 2 QBD 26 (CA)). There is accordingly and speaking generally, no "meeting" of shareholders or other bodies, if only one attends ; though "no doubt in a particular statute the word might be used in a special sense, so that the attendance of one might satisfy it" (per Coleridge C.J. in Sharp v. Dawes [1876] 2 QBD 26 (CA)) : see East v. Bennett Bros. Ltd. [1911] 1 Ch 163. In Oxford Companion to Law, 1980 edition, "meeting" has been described thus : "A gathering of two or more persons called to rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d thereafter, the chairman declared the meeting open. Notice dated January 27, 1994, alleged to have been served by Budgam, convening of the extraordinary general meeting of the shareholders of B.S.B. was tabled and read. Notice dated January 3, 1994, was also tabled and read. Thereafter, in the meeting, special business of removal of directors and appointment of directors was allegedly taken up and resolutions to that effect were passed. The minutes of the meeting appear to have been signed by T.K. Ramaswamy, chairman. A reading of the minutes shows that out of the shareholders who hold 10 shares of Rs. 10 each, only one shareholder, namely, Gurpal Singh was present and Shalendra Sharma, alleged authorised representative of Budgam, second shareholder, was present. On the record, there is a letter of Gurpal Singh dated April 7, 1994, whereby he had informed the board of directors of B.S.B. that he neither received notice regarding convening of the extraordinary general meeting of B.S.B., nor did he attend any such meeting purported to have been held on February 22, 1994, at New Delhi, either in person or by proxy. He has also mentioned that the question of his father, P.S. Sandhu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sting no evidence has been brought on record to show that notice of the extraordinary general meeting was served on Gurpal Singh or any other shareholder ; ( ii )No signature of Gurpal Singh are claimed to have obtained in any attendance register or any attendance slip or even by way of initials or in the so-called minutes book ; ( iii )Defendants in para 7 of their replication in Civil Suit No. 33 of 1994 have stated to the following : "The plaintiffs reaffirm and reiterate that an extraordinary general meeting of the first plaintiff was held after compliance of all the provisions of the Companies Act, and the defendants who have no interest and/or can possibly claim no interest in the first plaintiff are making feeble attempts to attack the validity of the said meeting. The plaintiffs crave reference to the minutes book, attendance register and the other statutory records of the first plaintiff to unequivocally demonstrate the veracity of the stand of the plaintiffs." (emphasis supplied). Having averred that the attendance register was maintained, no attendance register has been placed on record ; rather during the course of hearing of the matter, it was fairly conceded b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t having failed to obtain that relief from the Company Law Board, the records have been manipulated by the defendants to show that the extraordinary general meeting was held on February 22, 1994. It may also be noticed at this stage that the Company Petition No. 29 of 1993 was filed with the specific averment that "the remaining 5 shareholders who holds 10 shares each in the first respondent-company have started acting according to the whims and fancies of SWC and MRC and consequently prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners who undisputedly hold 99.99 per cent. paid-up equity capital of the first respondent-company". The stand of the respondents thus clearly was that all the shareholders of B.S.B. except Budgam were colluding with the S.W.C. group. The stand now taken that Gurpal Singh had come to attend the meeting, seems to be improbable. Moreover, having made the averment that the remaining five shareholders including Gurpal Singh were colluding with the S.W.C. group, the simplest thing for the defendants to have done would have been to take signatures of Gurpal Singh on the requisition notice or on the attendance register. The contention of Mr. Ramaswami is that the mode ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Madras High Court in some dispute between some parties to these proceedings had also an occasion to deal with the presumption required to be raised in regard to service of notice/documents sent under certificate of posting. Before the Division Bench, it was argued that reading of the section amounts to a deemed fiction and once a certificate of posting is produced with the address of the addressee, there is a deemed fiction that the cover is received by the addressee. The learned judges of the Division Bench repelled the argument by saying that (at page 881) : "A presumption can be drawn only if there is no other evidence available. In this case, the primary evidence regarding the posting of the letter is not produced. The best evidence that can be produced in this case is the despatch register of the company and the books of account showing the expenses incurred by the company for posting the letters, etc. None of these documents is produced. When the primary evidence is not produced, a presumption on the basis of section 53(2) of the Companies Act cannot be made use of since the posting of the letter is in dispute. Only if a document is sent by post, the presumption under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dge of convening and holding of the extraordinary general meeting. The FAX message referred to by Mr. Ramaswami, is dated March 4, 1994, by which date the civil suit at Patiala had been filed wherein reference was made to the alleged E.G.M. The contempt petition too had been filed on March 3, 1994, again in which, reference had been made to the convening and holding of the extraordinary general meeting. Counsel for the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 460 of 1994 had appeared on behalf of the caveator on March 3, 1994, when the matter was taken up in contempt proceedings. The FAX message merely raised a query as to the convening and holding of the extraordinary general meeting and is neither of any consequence nor in any way establishes that the plaintiffs knew the factum of convening and holding of the extraordinary general meeting, before February 22, 1994. In order to determine as to whether proceedings of the meeting and resolution passed therein are valid, it is necessary to notice the provisions of section 169 of the Companies Act. Under the section, the board of directors of the company on requisition of such number of members of the company as is specified in sub-section (4), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lanatory statement on the company and the directors sought to be removed, the board at directors failed to convene the extraordinary general meeting as sought for by the requisitionists within 21 days of the sending of notices and, therefore, as provided under sub-section (7) of section 169 of the Companies Act, the requisitionists convened the extraordinary general meeting and notice dated January 27, 1994, in this regard was sent to the other shareholders, namely, P.S. Sandhu, Gurpal Singh, G.S. Mann, J.S. Mann and P.R. Pandya, who hold 10 shares of Rs. 10 each. Notice dated January 27, 1994, has not been addressed to any other person except the shareholders and on the U.P.C. receipts, the names of these very persons are mentioned, meaning thereby that notice dated January 27, 1994, had not gone to anybody else except the shareholders. The business to be transacted in the extraordinary general meeting was for the removal of directors and appointment of new directors. The manner in which directors may be removed, is laid down in section 284 of the Companies Act. As per sub-section (1), a director may be removed by ordinary resolution, but under sub-section (2), special notice is r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Yet there is another aspect of the matter with regard to removal of the directors. Form No. 32 filed with the Registrar of Companies, pursuant to section 303(2) of the Companies Act, placed on record shows that as on March 12, 1992, the directors, namely, S. Roy and R.S. Ahluwalia had resigned and on July 30, 1993, in their place, T.K. Ravishankar and M.M. Gupta had been appointed as such. On September 16, 1993, D. Dasgupta had resigned. However, in notices dated January 3, 1994, and January 27, 1994, served under section 169 of the Companies Act, S. Roy, R.S. Ahluwalia and D. Dasgupta were sought to be removed and were allegedly removed in the extraordinary general meeting stated to have been held on February 22, 1994. But, as is apparent from Form No. 32 filed with the Registrar of Companies, on March 12, 1992, S. Roy and R.S. Ahluwalia and on September 16, 1993, D. Dasgupta had already resigned. This fallacy in the resolution alleged to have been passed in the extraordinary general meeting dated February 22, 1994, was brought to the notice of the defendants by the Registrar of Companies when Form No. 32 regarding reconstitution of the board of directors in the extra ordinary ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled at Rajpura, and relief of interim injunction was not given. A mention has also not been made of Civil Suit No. 158 of 1994, dated February 22, 1994, filed at Rajpura, seeking injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering in any manner in the affairs and management of the company. In this suit too, interim relief was not given. It was to the knowledge of Arun Kumar Jain that B.S.B. through Sarabhjit Singh had filed a suit at Rajpura against Budgam and others, i.e. , Suit No. 831 of 1993 and also Civil Suit No. 261 of 1993 against Arun Kumar Jain, seeking the declaration of his appointment as director as void and illegal and also injunction against the defendants for restraining them from interfering in the affairs and management of the company, but no mention of these suits too was made. The filing of Company Petition No. 29 of 1993 before the Company Law Board and declining of the prayer for the interim relief of convening the extraordinary general meeting too was within the knowledge of Arun Kumar Jain, but this fact has been omitted. The Senior Sub-Judge, Patiala, registered the suit on March 2, 1994, and on the application, pending notice to the other side ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be fully justified in refusing to exercise its discretion in favour of a person who has abused the process of a court and suppressed the relevant facts and obtained orders. It also held that the court should not be a party and extend help to a party who is playing fraud on the court. In Udai Chand v. Shankar Lal, AIR 1978 SC 765, special leave was obtained by making false and misleading assertions in the petition. The Supreme Court relying upon Hari Narain v. Badri Das, AIR 1963 SC 1558 and Rajabhai Abdul Rehman Munshi v. Vasudev Dhanjibhai Mody, AIR 1964 SC 345, revoked the leave and held that "a party who approaches this court invoking the exercise of this overriding discretion of the court must come with clean hands. If there appears on his part any attempt to overreach or mislead the court by false or untrue statements or by withholding true information which would have a bearing on the question of exercise of the discretion, the court would be justified in refusing to exercise the discretion or if the discretion has been exercised, in revoking the leave to appeal granted even at the time of hearing of the appeal". In All India State Bank Officers Federation v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erves to be taken note of. In para 20 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have mentioned "that the cause of action to file the present suit has arisen to the plaintiffs when the defendants hatched the conspiracy at Patiala .... Moreover, the branch offices of two of defendants Nos. 13 and 14, who are interfering in the management, are at Patiala, whereas all other defendants are the agents/employees of defendants Nos. 13 and 14". Again in para 21, it has been stated that the registered office and the factory unit of the first plaintiff is situated in District Patiala and the cause of action has arisen to the plaintiffs within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court and thus, the court has ample jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The description of defendants Nos. 13 and 14 as given in the plaint is, "13. Shaw Wallace Company Ltd., 4, Bankshall Street, Calcutta-700 001, with branch office at Patiala, and, 14. Cruickshank and Company Ltd., 40, Bankshall Lok Community, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110 057, with branch office at Patiala". It has not been disclosed as to at what place, the branch office at Patiala of defendants Nos. 13 and 14 is situate. Admittedly, the industri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tertained by the Senior Sub-Judge, Chandigarh, on the mere allegation that the branch office of the firm is situate within the territorial jurisdiction of the Chandigarh court. The order entertaining the suit was set aside in revision by this court. The Supreme Court in Subodh Kumar Gupta v. Shrikant Gupta [1993] 2 PLR 728, while affirming the judgment of this court in Shrikant Gupta's case, held that a mere bald allegation that the firm was having a branch office at Chandigarh, will not confer jurisdiction unless it is shown that a part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of that court. In this case too, the only allegation is that branch offices of two of defendants Nos. 13 and 14, who were interfering in the management, are at Patiala and the other defendants are the agents/employees of defendants Nos. 13 and 14. This bald allegation cannot confer jurisdiction on the court at Patiala when no cause of action had accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of the Patiala court. No doubt, the District Judge, Patiala, has the administrative control over the courts at Rajpura, but for the matters relating to the subject-matter falling within the ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th regard to possession of the subject-matter referred to above which is likely to cause breach of peace or disturb the public tranquillity. Even as per the latest report of the S.H.O. P.S. Dera Bassi dated February 9, 1994, as also the report as recent as February 28, 1994, Shri Sarabhjit Singh representing party No. 2 is in peaceful possession along with his work force and no imminent danger to peace is apprehended. Being satisfied that it is unnecessary to carry on these proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, I hereby drop all the proceedings in respect of the above said distillery". It was only on March 2, 1994, when the Sub-Divisional Magistrate decided to drop the proceedings, that the suit at Patiala was filed and on that very date the plaintiffs were successful in obtaining the interim injunction. After having obtained the interim injunction from the Senior Sub-Judge, Patiala, C.O.C.P. No. 199 of 1994 was filed in this court on March 3, 1994. On March 4, 1994, G.R. Majithia J. on finding that the parties were at issue as to which of the parties is in actual physical possession of the company, on agreement of counsel for the parties directed the Chief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate, Patiala, who is in possession of the industrial unit, under the orders of this court in the contempt petition, is directed to give physical possession of the industrial unit to the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 460 of 1994. In consequence of the aforementioned order, the revision petition and also the application for injunction filed in Civil Suit No. 33 of 1994 shall stand dismissed. As a result of dismissal of the revision petition and application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal pending before the Additional District Judge, Patiala, having become infructuous too shall stand dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. It is made clear that the decision given in this revision petition is only for the purpose of deciding the revision petition as also the application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed in Civil Suit No. 460 of 1994 as had been agreed by learned counsel for the parties. Therefore, any observation made herein shall not be construed to be an expression on the merits of the cases. Records of the civil suits and also the documents which have been filed in this court be sent t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
