9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 1016X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of sentence dated 25.5.2009 sentencing the appellants to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) weeks and attaching the properties mentioned in para 12 of the order dated 20.4.2009 which were sold contrary to the injunction order. 2. The order of conviction and sentence in the contempt was delivered prior to the decision on the application for injunction and of vacation of stay. Appeals were preferred against the final order in the injunction applications which have been dealt with by us in detail in the judgement passed today in FAO (OS) No.337/2009 FAO (OS) No.423/2009 and we have found merits in the case of the original plaintiffs. Insofar as the impugned order is concerned the learned single Judge has dealt a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they continued to represent themselves as representatives of the company by filing documents with the Registrar of Companies and an ingenious plea was raised that they had not been restrained to act as Directors despite the relief claimed in that behalf. 4. We have no doubt that the finding arrived at by the learned single Judge that the restrained order in respect of the appellants acting as shareholders/representatives did not imply that they can claim themselves to be Directors is correct. Thus, appellants could not have represented the company in any manner nor filed anything on behalf of the company or executed documents on behalf of the company. The endeavour was clearly to overreach the court proceedings. It is a clear case of bla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court so that the same can be given to the purchasers who had been barred to get the physical possession of the plots from the appellants. The sale deed records that the physical possession of the plot had been handed over but the appellants pleaded before the learned single Judge that the possession of the land could not be taken over by the purchaser as some unauthorized persons had occupied the plot. 8. Affidavits have been filed under the signatures of appellants on 18.8.2009 in terms whereof the deponents have undertaken to indemnify the company against the claims of the purchaser of the plots of the company which have been declared non-est vide orders dated 20.4.2009 and 25.5.2009 till the pendency of the suit. 9. We have found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
