SOUMEN SEN,J. - (1.) This is an application for amendment of the plaint.
(2.) The plaintiffs have filed a suit against various defendants including the financial institution. In the original plaint it is stated that plaintiff no. 1 was a promoter shareholder of Usha Martin Limited. He was the erstwhile Chairman of the said company. In the year 1998 the plaintiff no. 1 decided to shift to London to extend the Usha Martin Group Overseas to pursue his business interest in London. The plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 by themselves are through their friends and associates hold about 24.49 per cent of the total issued and paid up share capital of the company. It appears with effect from 1998 the plaintiff no. 2 having regard to is advanced age, distanced himself from the day to day management and affairs of the said company and assumed the role of Chairman Emeritus of the company. On or about 23.12.2009, the plaintiffs and or their family members and or their associate companies referred to Basanta Kumar and Prashant Jhawars' group on the one hand and entered into the share holder's agreement with the defendant nos. 5 and 6 and their family members whereby they inter alia and agreed the parity and equality of the shareholding the management inter alia of the said company had agreed not to act in derogation of such agreement. Prior to August 2011 and with effect from the end of 2010 defendant No. 4 assumed complete control over the affairs of the company and he has been appointing nominees and chosen persons in the Board of Directors of the said Company. On and from 2015, the company under the leadership of defendant no. 4 has incurred extensive loss. It is alleged that defendant no. 4 has completely siphoned the assets of the said company and have completely mismanaged the affairs of the said company. On or about August 2015 the defendant no. 4 and plaintiffs had a meeting with said Arundhati Bhattacharya, the Chairman of the SBI in connection with the request of the said company for release of the additional credit facilities. It is alleged at the said meeting that the additional credit facilities of Rs. 1190 crores would be extended only if the patriarch of the group being the plaintiff no. 2 continued to remain in the Board of Directors and continued to advise and guide the Board of Directors as to the road map to be followed for revival of the said company. It was only after the plaintiff no. 2 agreed to continue to guide the said company agreed to grant of additional credit facilities.
(3.) At the meeting held by the directors on 22.12.2015 the company acknowledged the fact that the said company in order to revive and/rehabilitate itself required the active support, guidance, wisdom, leadership and experience of the plaintiff no. 2 and requested plaintiff no. 2 to assume an active role in the day to day affairs. It is alleged that having exploited and having utilised the formidable reputation of the plaintiff no. 2 to obtained the said additional credit facilities of Rs. 1190 crores, thereafter the defendant nos. 4 and 5 and 7 to 12 colluded and conspired to completely strip and denude the plaintiff no. 2 of all powers and in the process rendered him completely toothless.;