Arijit Banerjee, J. - (1.) THIS is an application taken out by the defendant Nos. 12, 13 and 14 for rejection of the plaint of CS No. 319 of 2013 as against the said defendants or alternatively for expunction of the names of the said defendants from the plaint of the said suit.
(2.) THE plaintiffs have filed Company Petition No. 859 of 2010 before the Company Law Board, Eastern Bench, Calcutta, under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956. In the said company petition the present defendant No. 12 was impleaded as respondent No. 16. The main reliefs sought in the said company petition included the following: - "(n) The purported agreement dated 11th December, 2007, allegedly made between PSIDL the respondent No. 8 herein and Citystar the respondent No. 16 herein for issuance of Non Convertible Debentures in a forged and fabricated document and the said purported agreement be adjudged illegal, null and void and directed to be delivered up and cancelled; (o) Declaration that the purported arbitration proceeding initiated by Citystar the respondent No. 16 herein against PSIDL the respondent No. 8 is a collusive proceeding and all records of the said proceeding including the purported awards made therein be adjudged illegal null and void and directed to be delivered up and cancelled. (p) Declaration that the respondent No. 8 continues to be lawful owner of the said 2,22,49,999 equity shares of Rs. 10/ - each all fully paid up in BAPL the respondent No. 12 company; (q) Declaration that the respondent No. 16 has no right or interest whatsoever over the said 2,22,49,999 equity shares held by the respondent No. 8 in the respondent No. 12 company or any part or portion thereof; (r) Perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from acting upon or giving any effect or further effect to the purported agreement dated 11th December, 2007 allegedly entered into by and between the respondent No. 8 and the respondent No. 12 referred to in paragraph 6.23 hereinabove;" In the said company proceeding the interim reliefs prayed for included the following relief: - "(k) Injunction restraining the respondents from acting upon or giving any effect or further effect to the purported agreement dated 11th December, 2007 allegedly entered into by and between the respondent No. 8 and the respondent No. 16 referred to in paragraph 6.23 hereinabove."
(3.) THE petitioners in the said company proceeding being the plaintiffs in the present suit filed an application before the Company Law Board praying for withdrawal/abandonment of the main prayers (n) to (r) and interim prayer (k), which have been set out hereinabove. The petitioners further prayed for leave to institute a fresh suit in respect of the matters covered by the reliefs which were sought to be abandoned. The Company Law Board rejected the petitioner's prayer for abandoning the aforesaid reliefs with leave to institute fresh proceedings in respect of the matters covered by such reliefs.;