- (1.) This stay petition is directed against an order of the learned trial judge dismissing the interlocutory application in the civil suit filed by the appellant herein. Be it recorded that the plaintiff-appellant instituted the suit with a prayer for leave under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, for the following reliefs : "(a) Declaration that the company is not entitled to make any allotment of shares in favour of the applicants to the issue of shares offered to the public for subscription by the company pursuant to the prospectus dated February 24, 1993, and that the purported allotment of shares sought to be made by the company in respect of the said public issue on July 16, 1993, is illegal, null and void. (b) Declaration that the applicants including the plaintiff who had applied and subscribed, for shares of and in the company pursuant to the prospectus issued by the company dated February 24, 1993, are entitled to immediate refund of their application moneys along with interest accrued thereon as prescribed under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. (c) Decree for delivery up of the allotment of shares sought to be made by the company on July 16, 1993, and all record relating thereto in respect of the public issue of shares made by the company pursuant to the prospectus dated February 24, 1993, and the same be cancelled and adjudged void. (d) Perpetual injunction restraining the company from making any allotment of share capital of the company offered to the public for subscription pursuant to the prospectus issued by the company and dated February 24, 1993. (e) Perpetual injunction restraining the company from giving any effect or further effect to the allotment of share capital of and in the company offered to the public for subscription pursuant to prospectus issued by the company dated February 24, 1993, alleged to have been made on July 16, 1993, in any manner whatsoever. (f) Perpetual injunction restraining the company from utilising any moneys received from the applicants for shares including the plaintiff pursuant to the prospectus dated February 24, 1993, in any manner whatsoever. (g) Perpetual injunction restraining the company from taking any steps to have its shares listed in any stock exchange including the Calcutta, Delhi, Bombay and Ahmedabad Stock Exchanges and/or taking any steps for grant of permission for shares so offered pursuant to the prospectus dated February 24, 1993, to be dealt with in any of the said stock exchanges in any manner whatsoever. (h) Perpetual injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from approving the allotment of shares made by the company on July 16, 1993, in any manner whatsoever. (i) Perpetual injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from approving listing of the shares of the company and/or permitting the dealing of the shares of the company in the Calcutta Stock Exchange in any manner whatsoever. (j) Perpetual injunction restraining the company and defendant No. 2 from giving any effect or further effect to the purported publication dated July 16, 1993, contained in the daily issue of The Statesman, dated July 19, 1993, in any manner whatsoever. (k) Perpetual injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from in any manner proceeding with its said public issue or giving any effect or further effect to the applications received pursuant thereto. (1) Mandatory injunction directing the company, its servants, agents and assigns to forthwith refund to the applicants for shares of and in the company including the plaintiff offered to the public for subscription by the company pursuant to the prospectus dated February 24, 1993, the application moneys relating to such applications along with interest accrued thereon and with effect from June 28, 1993, as provided and prescribed under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. (m) Receiver ; (n) Interlocutory injunction ; (o) Attachment ; (p) Costs ; (q) Further or other reliefs."
(2.) Be it noted here that the appellant-petitioner moved an interlocutory application for injunction, as noted above and the matter came to this court and this court also from time to time passed diverse orders eventually, however, culminating in the order of the learned trial judge.
(3.) Normally, this court would not have interfered with the order of the learned trial judge, more so, by reason of the fact that the same arises out of an interlocutory application, but since elaborate and detailed submissions have been made on questions of law and the issue involved is rather interesting, this court deems it expedient to deal with the matter on the merits as well.;