I.P.MUKERJI, J. - (1.) IN the above suit (C.S. No. 308 of 2009) an interim application was moved by the plaintiffs on 16th October, 2009 before the Vacation Bench of this Court for certain urgent reliefs.
(2.) IN that application, on the same day, I passed the following order: "T. No. 67 of 2009 TA. No. 65 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE LOOMTEX ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. and ANR Verses JITENDRA NATH CHAUBEY and ORS. For the Petitioner : Mr. Joy Saha, Advocate. For the Defendant No. 10 : Mr. S.K. Kapoor, Senior Advocate For the Defendant No. 1 : Mr. Jishnu Saha, Advocate For Sarda Brothers : Mr. Utpal Bose, Senior Advocate Before: The Hon'ble Justice I.P. MUKERJI Date: 16th October, 2009 (VACATION BENCH) The Court: Leave granted under Section 80 Sub-Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Clause 12 of the Letter's patent. The plaintiff no. 1 is a Company. The plaintiff no. 2 is said to be more than 80% share holder of this company, which fact is very seriously disputed by the respondents. The dispute is about control and management of the company. At this stage it is stated that Mr. Kapoor's clients representing the plaintiff no. 1 are operating a bank account of the company in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gariahat Branch and that there is a credit of about Rs.5 crores in this account recently. IT is alleged that Mr. Kapoor's clients will wrongfully withdraw the same from the account thus depriving the company. At this stage it is not disputed that Mr. Kapoor's clients have been operating the bank account for a substantial period of time. Let this application be returnable before the Regular Bench on 21st October, 2009 subject to the convenience of the Regular Bench. However, let withdrawal from this account be made only in the regular course of business till further orders of this court. All parities concerned are to act on a Xerox signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings. Sd/- I.P. Mukerji" This order has become very controversial. In this application, the plaintiff seeks vacation of that order and further orders. This application was filed on 24th August, 2010, after ten months. The plaintiffs seek to explain the delay which I will discuss below. What is not explained is that the interim application on which the order dated 16th October, 2009 was passed, was made returnable before the regular bench on 21st October, 2009. It never appeared before the regular bench nor any steps taken by any party to place the matter before it. Neither has any effort been made to prosecute that application. The whole exercise now, seems to be for discharge of the interim order dated 16th October, 2009. Some proceedings were being heard by the Division Bench consisting of the then Chief Justice the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohit S. Shah and Pinaki Chandra Ghose J. They were numbered as CAN 205 of 2010 connected with MAT 18 of 2010. I have not been told all the details of the proceedings, but I was shown an order of 1st March, 2010 of that Bench directing the Branch Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gariahat Branch, Kolkata to produce all details of the transactions in Account No. 10691131000716 maintained with them. Now, this was the bank account which was the subject matter of the interim order dated 16th October, 2009.
(3.) THE Oriental Bank of Commerce by their letter dated 2nd March, 2010 made the disclosure. It appeared from that disclosure that an application was made to the bank on 9th September, 2009 on behalf of Loomtex Engineering Private Ltd, the first plaintiff for opening an account in that bank. The amount initially deposited was Rs.6,000/-. The account was operated by the following persons: Mr. Jitendra Nath Choubey, the first defendant, Mr. Om Prakash Thard, the fourth defendant, Mr. Binay Kumar Trivedi, the fifth defendant, Mr. Mrinmoy Sarkar, the sixth defendant and Mr. Nilkanta Mondol, the seventh defendant. . A copy of the Board resolution said to have been adopted by the plaintiff on 9th September, 2009 describing these persons as the directors of the company and authorizing them to operate the bank account, was also produced. One thing was clear that the tenth defendant was not operating the account. Thereafter, it seems that the first plaintiff, on 21st October, 2009 wrote to the bank stating that at a meeting of the Board of Directors held on 19th September, 2009 the plaintiff company had decided to change the persons who were authorized to operate the bank accounts.;