9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Durgapur from which the respondents were able to get copies of all the exhibits only some time 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, petitioner No. 2 and 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 petitioner No. 4 seeking that his name may be struck off 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 supporting 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. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No board meeting was called after the 103rd meeting on October 23, 1990, in spite of several letters written by the petitioner. Instead of holding the 104th meeting, the 105th meeting was sought to be convened on April 16, 1991. The petitioner protested against this on the ground that the 104th meeting had not been held. On an intimation that the 104th meeting had been held on January 23, 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 respondents Nos. 2 and 3 had signed the same. The Registrar of Companies has initiated criminal prosecution against the company in this regard. 6 . On March 5, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 42 of the Articles of association. According to the petitioner, the board had no authority to dismiss a director appointed by the general body. The company also paid him a cheque for about ₹ 32,000 in full and final settlement, which the petitioner never encashed. 10. Regarding cessation of office of director by the petitioner, the company is not consistent in its stand. In proceedings before District Judge, Alipore, respondent No. 3 has affirmed in an affidavit that the petitioner vacated his office on July 13, 1994, at one page and again at another page, he has stated that he had vacated the office on September 17, 1994. In other words, in more than one way the respondents have ensured that the petitioner is completely eliminated in participating in the affairs of the company. 11. On the demise of 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 respondent No. 2 in these proceedings, have not yet registered the transmission of the shares in their names. 12. Without quorum, respondent No. 3 was appointed an additional director on the board and further sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 70 of 1994. 15. In view of the above, according to Shri Ganguli, the Company Law Board should refrain from going into these allegations inasmuch as there could be conflict of decisions. Even otherwise he stated that the petitioner, having chosen a forum, cannot later on choose another forum to agitate the same matter. On the doctrine of election, he relied on Black's 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. For the proposition that one cannot agitate the same matter in two different judicial fora, he relied on Amir Din Shahab Din v. Shiv Dev Singh Jhanda Singh, AIR 1917 Lahore 102 and Maharoj Dhiraj Himmatsinghji v. State of Rajasthan, MANU/SC/0846/1987 : 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
