9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss Complex, Wazirpur DTC Depot, Delhi. plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the Directors of plaintiff No. 1. plaintiff No. 3 also claims to be a shareholder of plaintiff No. 1. Defendant No. 1 is a society registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1957. Inter alia, objects of defendant No. 1 is to promote and safeguard the business interests of its members incidental to the production of their publications and to take suitable action in respect of such businesses as are affected by legislation or commercial transactions. 3. plaintiffs assert that plaintiff No. 1 is engaged in printing and publishing of 4 newspapers in Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu, being: 1. Punjab Kesari - Delhi 2. Punjab Kesari - Jallandhar 3. Hindi Samachar 4. Jagbani - Jallandhar 4. s per the plaintiffs, plaintiff No. 1., by virtue of being a printer and publisher of the afore-noted 4 publications holds 4 memberships with the defendant No. 1, each membership pertaining distinctly to each of the publications afore-noted. According to the plaintiff, right to be represented at dealings of the plaintiff No. 1 with defendant No. 1 is through a duly appointed nominee. For the publication Punjab Kesari-Delhi , ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the plaint and that no resolution has been passed by plaintiff No. 1 authorising plaintiff No. 2 and plaintiff No. 3 to initiate any legal proceedings on behalf of plaintiff No. 1. 11. On merits, defendant No. 1 pleads that in the past, MRVs in respect of publications of plaintiff No. 1 were received from the registered office at Jallandhar under the signatures of Sh. Vijay Chopra, defendant No. 2 who is the Chairman and Managing Director of plaintiff No. 1. It is stated that under the guise of the suit, plaintiffs 2 and 3 are attempting to change this status i.e. all MRVs being received from the head office. It is stated that defendant No. 1 received MRV for month of February 2002 pertaining to Punjab Kesari-Delhi under signatures of one, Sh. Vinod Verma, a business officer of plaintiff No. 1 and being not in accordance with the past practice, it wrote to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of plaintiff No. 1 i.e. defendant No. 2 about the receipt of said MRV. It received a letter dated 14.5.2002 from defendant No. 2 informing that the MRV aforesaid pertaining to Punjab Kesari-Delhi was without authority and required the defendant No. 1 to rely on only said MRV as emanated fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the basis of the which accounts are drawn. Based on these accounts, MRV returns are prepared. 16. It is asserted by defendant No. 2 that the issue raised in the suit pertains to the internal management of the affairs of plaintiff No. 1, adjudicatory proceedings relating to the internal management of the company are pending before the Company Law Board, vide company petition No. 76/1999. It is accordingly stated by defendant No. 2 that by way of the present suit, plaintiffs 2 and 3 are wanting to get de-facto and de-jute control of the Delhi office. 17. During arguments, learned counsel for the parties did not dispute that proceedings under Section 397 of the Companies Act were pending before the Company Law Board. 18. Fulcrum of the submission made by Sh. H.L. Tiku, learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs was the admission of defendant No. 1 that each publication had a separate accreditation as also the admission that plaintiff No. 3 was the recorded nominee to represent Punjab Kesari-Delhi in its dealings with defendant No. 1. Counsel urged that said two admissions were sufficient to grant the interim relief prayed for. In relation to the defense and documents relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relied upon by the defendants. What are the documents which further the defense taken? 24. Letter dated 16.4.2001 addressed to defendant No. 1 under the signatures of defendant No. 2 as also letters dated 19.5.2001, 18.6.2001, 7.7.2001, 6.8.2001, 6.9.2001, 8.12.2001 and 5.1.2002 evidence that all MRV return forms were being submitted under cover of one letter under signature of defendant No. 2. Not only that, some of the MRV returns pertaining to Punjab Kesari-Delhi were even being signed by defendant No. 2 For example, MRV form pertaining to March 2001, MRV form pertaining to May, 2001 and MRV form pertaining to June 2001 show that these forms relating to Punjab Kesari-Delhi were signed by defendant No. 2. 25.I t is obvious that in the past, some of the MRV forms pertaining to Punjab Kesari-Delhi were being submitted under signatures of defendant No. 2, some were being submitted under signatures of defendant No. 3, but the covering letter was emanating from the head office at Jallandhar under signatures of defendant No. 2. It has to be noted that 4 MRV return forms pertaining to the 4 publications were being submitted under cover of one common letter the signatures of defen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
