9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibits only sometimes in July, 1997 after which only the respondents filed their replies. In addition to the allegations in the petition, the petitioners later filed a few applications wherein certain additional allegations were also made. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 expired and on an application made by the legal heirs of these persons, we allowed the substitution of the legal heirs in the place of the expired persons. An application was filed by the petitioner No. 4 seeking that his name may be struck of from the array of parties for reasons stated in that application and another application was filed by the employees of the company seeking to be impleaded as they were support- ing the respondents. 2. In addition to the present petition, the petitioners have filed certain criminal proceedings as well as civil proceedings in respect of some of the allegations contained in the petition and the applications. In some cases, while proceedings were initiated in other fora before filing of this petition, some proceedings were initiated after filing of this petition. l A summary of the petition is as follows: The Company was inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... written by the petitioner. Instead of holding 104th meeting, 105th meeting was sought to be convened on 16-4-1991. The petitioner protested against this on the ground that 104th meeting had not been held. On an intimation that 104th meeting had been held on 23-1-1991, the petitioner made a complaint to the registrar of companies, who seized the minutes book of Board Meetings wherein it was noticed that it has been falsely shown therein that the petitioner had attended this meeting, even though, only the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had signed the same. The Registrar of Companies has initiated criminal prosecution against the compa- ny in this regard. l On 5-3-1992, when the petitioner visited Durgapur, he looked into the accounts of the company when the Accountant of the company informed that there was a shortage of ₹ 93,500 in the cash balance. The petitioner advised the respondents to correct the irregularity and illegality of the accounts of the company. However, without taking any corrective action, the respondents have asserted that there was no irregularity. The petitioner advised the respondents once again through a letter dated 11-3-1992 to regulate the accounts which t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ettlement, which the petitioner never encashed. Regarding cessation of office of director by the petitioner, the company is not consistent in its stand. In a proceedings before District Judge, Alipore, the respondent No. 3 has affirmed in an affidavit that the petitioner vacated his office on 13-7-1994 in one page and again in another page, he has stated that he had vacated the office on 17-9-1994. In other words, in more than one way the respondents have ensured that the petitioner is completely eliminated in partic- ipating in the affairs of the company. l On the demise of the respondent No. 2, the company instead of registering the shares held by him in the name of the legal heirs who have now been allowed to be substituted in place of the respondent No. 2 in these proceedings, have not yet registered the transmission of the shares in their names. l Without quorum, the respondent No. 3 appointed an additional director on the Board and further shares were issued to new shareholders in exclusion of the existing shareholders. 4. Under these circumstances, the petitioners aver that it is just and equitable that the company should be wound up but to do so would unfairly prej ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, he relied on Black Law Dictionary 6th Edition Page 518 wherein it is stated that if two or more remedies exist which are repugnant and inconsistent with one another, a party will be bound if he has chosen one of them. On the proposition that one cannot agitate same matter in two different judicial fora he relied on AIR 1947 Lahore 102 and Maharaj Dhiraj Himmat Singhji v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1987 SC 82. In the first case after filing a suit, the plaintiff instituted another suit on the same cause of action and against the same defendant. The first suit was dismissed for default and regarding the second suit, the court held that the same is liable to be dismissed as offending against the well known maxim that no one shall be twice vexed with one and the same cause of action and also on the ground of its institution and trail amounting to an abuse of process of the court. In the second case, after filing a writ under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same was withdrawn without permission to institute a fresh petition. The court held that under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot tile another writ petition in respect of the same cause of action. 7. We have g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
