- (1.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 13.2.1961, U.P. Hotels Ltd. (formerly known as Uttar Pradesh Hotels & Restaurants Limited) promoted by Gupta Family was incorporated as a Public Limited Company. In the year 1961, initially, the said company was established under the name and style of Banaras House Pvt. Limited (formerly Banaras Art House Pvt. Ltd.) and by passage of time, the organization has expanded and different companies were incorporated, such as U.P. Hotels Limited (UPHL), Hotel Clarks Varanasi Ltd. (HCVL), Indian Textiles Private Ltd. (ITCPL); and Banaras House Pvt. Ltd. (BHL) and on account of dispute with regard to the management of different organizations, the plaintiffs -respondent nos. 1 to 3 preferred a suit bearing Regular Suit No. 1574 of 2012 [Sri Birendra Kumar and others Versus Sri Sushil Kumar and others] with the following reliefs: (a) It be declared by a declaratory decree that the plaintiffs and the defendant nos. 1 to 11 (one to eleven) and their predecessors in interest arrived at the family settlement duly acknowledged in writing on 5.8.1998 (fifth August Nineteen ninety eight) coupled with the Memorandum of Understanding in respect of the properties more fully described in paragraph 19 and 23 above and the schedule -II annexed hereto with the plaint having been duly acted upon the same and they are bound by it. (b) By means of a decree for perpetual injunction, the defendants and their agents may kindly be restrained from acting contrary to the terms of the family settlement and the Memorandum of Understanding in respect of properties mentioned in paragraph 19 and 23 above and the Schedule -II annexed hereto and be restrained from alienating or transferring the same including its possession, in any manner whatsoever to any person or persons by acting illegally or otherwise. (c) By means of a decree for mandatory injunction, this Hon'ble Court may very kindly be graciously pleased to direct the defendants to perform their obligations fastened upon them pursuant to the aforesaid family settlement and Memorandum of Understanding dated 5.8.1998 as well, as mentioned in paragraph 14 above including thereby, to execute such deed or deeds as required from them in favour of the plaintiffs or the respective parties in the manner as mentioned therein within such day and time to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court, failing which the same may kindly be done through the process of this Hon'ble Court. (d) Cost of the suit may kindly be awarded to the plaintiffs and against the defendants. (e) Such other reliefs or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may kindly deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants.
(2.) IN the said suit, notices were issued and after hearing the parties, the trial Court passed an injunction order dated 20.3.2013 on the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC directing all the parties to the suit to maintain status quo. Being aggrieved, one of the defendants, namely, Rupak Gupta [appellant herein] has preferred an F.A.F.O. No. 447 of 2013 [Rupak Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar And Ors].
(3.) AT the same instance another appeal was preferred as F.A.F.O. No. 448 of 2013 by one Shushil Kumar as appellant then defendant. Both the appeals got connected vide order dated 29.04.2013 and notices were issued and all the parties have put in appearance through their respective Counsel. During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the respective parties have agreed that the matter may be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre and accordingly, Mr.I.B. Singh was appointed as Mediator to look into the matter and to mediate between the parties, as the dispute is purely a family dispute with regard to the management of different organizations. The said order was passed on 25.7.2013. In compliance of this Court's Order dated 25.7.2013, the matter was mediated by Mr. I.B. Singh, Senior Advocate. According to the report of Mediator dated 29.11.2013, though the matter was fixed on thirty six (36) dates, yet the mediation is unsuccessful. It is also asserted that when the parties were trying for mediation for settling the dispute and on one hand plaintiff -respondent moved an application C -54 under Section 151 CPC complaining therein that defendant No.4 -Rupak Gupta is altering the operation of the Board and is keeping all the rights with himself and believing the allegations of the plaintiff -respondent to be true , the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) allowed the application C -54 in part vide order dated 14.8.2013 and prohibited the operation of the resolution dated 14.7.2013.;