- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26th April, '2010 passed by the Hon'ble First Court disposing of the application to extend the time to file the written statement.
(2.) It appears that one S.P. Roy, since deceased, the Appellant No. 2 and" one Lutz A. Schuessler floated the Appellant No. 1 company. The said Lutz A. Schuessler was not included as the share holder but was all along agreed to utilise his expertise and acumen in the business with the specific stipulation that he would be made a shareholder at appropriate time. At the time of incorporation the Appellant No. 2 and the said S.P. Roy, since deceased held 100 shares each in the Appellant No. 1 company. The Appellant No. 1 was dealing with the supply of the spare parts to the different collieries and such spare parts were imported through a supplier of a foreign organization with the help of the said Lutz A. Schuessler who also at times provided a sufficient funds for such supply. The funds so provided was agreed to be remitted in the form of shares being allotted of the said Appellant No. 1 in his favour but the said S.P. Roy, since deceased caused all shares issued in his name instead of the said Lutz A. Schuessler. Subsequently, the said discrepancy was detected and in a Board meeting held on 19th March 2007, the said Lutz A. Schuessler was appointed as a director and it was decided that shares to be issued in his favour. The resolution taken on the said Board meeting was duly implemented and shares were, in fact, issued in favour of Lutz A. Schuessler and the respective shareholding of the three shareholders the then stood viz. S.P. Roy, since deceased - 2,99,300 shares, Prabuddha Choudhury - 100 shares and Lutz A. Schuessler - 3,52,082 shares.
(3.) The said S.P. Roy died on May 21, 2007. The real dispute starts thereafter. Two ladies namely Sipra Roy and Fiona Roy, claimed to be his widow laid their claim in respect of the estate of the said S.P. Roy, since deceased including the aforesaid equity shares held by the said S.P. Roy, since deceased in Appellant No. 1 company. It further appears that the said Sipra Roy obtained a succession certificate on 26th November 2007 issued by the District Delegate at Barrackpore in respect of the aforesaid equity shares of the S.P. Roy, since deceased. However, the Plaintiff/Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 herein also claimed in respect of the said shareholding of S.P. Roy, since deceased by causing a letter dated 1st August 2007. The Plaintiff/Respondent thereafter instituted a suit before this Hon'ble Court being CS No. 181of 2007 praying, inter alia, the following reliefs: (a) A decree of declaration that the Plaintiffs are the share holders in respect of 30,100 equity shares valued at Rs. 10/- each of the Defendant No. 4 on and from May 21, 2007. (b) A decree of declaration that the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are not entitled to represent the company, being the Defendant No. 4 in any manner whatsoever. (c) A decree of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and Defendant No. 4 and/or their employees, agents, servants, assigns from withdrawing any money from the bank accounts of the Defendant Nos. 4 including those particulars whereof are given in paragraph 5 hereinabove and/or from withdrawing the title deeds in respect of the properties mentioned in paragraph 8 hereinabove which is lying with the Defendant No. l. (d) A decree of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 their agents, servants, assigns from transferring, dealing with, disposing of, alienating and/or creating any third party interest in respect of the assets and the properties of the Defendant No. 4 including the properties mentioned in paragraph 5 and 8 hereinabove. (e) A decree of perpetual injunction be passed restraining the Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4, their servants, agents, successor-in-office, assigns successor-in-interest, and/or each one of them from withdrawing any money lying in the bank accounts particulars whereof are given in paragraph 5 hereinabove and also from any other bank accounts in the name of the Defendant No. 4. (f) A decree of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant No. l from handing over the title deeds, particulars whereof are given in paragraph 8 hereinabove to the Defendant No. 2 and/or Defendant No. 3 and/or Defendant No. 4 their employees, agents, servants and assigns (g) A decree of mandatory injunction directing the Defendant No. 1 to hand over the title deeds in respect of the properties mentioned in paragraph 8 hereinabove to the Plaintiffs. (h) A decree of mandatory injunction be passed directing the Defendant No. l and Defendant No. l and Defendant No. 5 not to allow any withdrawal of money from the accounts particulars whereof are given in paragraph 5 thereof, by and/or on behalf of the Defendant No. 2 and/or the Defendant No. 3 and./or the Defendant No. 4. (i) Receiver (j) Injunction (k) Attachment before judgment (l) Costs (m) Further and/or other reliefs.;