- (1.) THIS application, styled as an application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed in respect of an order bearing No. 15 dated 06th August, 2007, passed by the learned Judge, 7th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1177 of 2006, seeking a reversal and/or setting - aside thereof.
(2.) THE petitioners in the instant application are the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in the Title Suit pending before the Learned Court, below. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 7 are the plaintiffs, whereas opposite party Nos. 8 to 13 are the defendant Nos. 6 to 11 and opposite party Nos. 14 to 16 are the proforma defendant Nos. 12 to 14 in the said Title Suit. The present application has been principally contested before this Court by the petitioner No. 1, being the defendant No.1 in the suit, and the opposite party No.1, being the plaintiff No.1 in the suit.
(3.) AT the very outset, a point of maintainability of the instant application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was raised by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite parties/plaintiffs. It was submitted that the impugned order, having been passed on an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, cannot be said to be .an order "finally disposing of" the "suit" or "other proceedings" and, therefore, not. amenable to revision by the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Much arguments have been advanced by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties on this score. However, I do not consider it necessary to enter into the realms of controversy in respect of this particular issue or unnecessarily dilate it any further, since this Court also has necessary determination to entertain a revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and, in any event, it is no one's case that the impugned order cannot be subjected to judicial review under the said Constitutional provision. I, therefore, proceed to consider the present application on its merit. The plaintiffs instituted the aforementioned learned Title Suit before the City Civil Court at Calcutta praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs: - " (d)A decroc for declaration that the purported agreement dated 19th July, 2006 between Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (BSIDC) the defendant No.6 and Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. (AOL) the defendant No. 1 is illegal, null and void and be cancelled and set aside. (e)A decree for declaration that Mr. Surjit Singh Malik the plaintiff No.2 is still the Managing Director of (BAPL) the plaintiff No. 1 and the Board of Directors as on 1st August, 2006 are still the Board of Directors of the plaintiff No. 1. (f)Decree for declaration that the purported reconstitution of the Board of Directors of (BAPL) the plaintiff company as mentioned in the notice dated 17th August, 2006, is illegal null and void and be set aside and cancelled. (g)A decree for declaration that the purported resolution dated 7th August, 2006 and all other resolutions passed by the defendant Nos. 2, 3,4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 as the alleged directors be adjudged null and void and be set aside and cancelled. (h)A decree for declaration that the defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 have not been appointed as Directors of the Bihar Air Products Limited at any Lawful Board Meeting or General Meeting of the said company and are not lawful directors of the said company. (i)A decree for declaration that the purported notice dated 17th August, 2006 as well as purported Board Meeting for appointment of the defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 as alleged directors of the plaintiffNo.l, is illegal, bad, null and void and be set aside and cancelled, (j) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9,lOfrom actingas the Directors and/or its Chairman, Vice -Chairman, Managing Director, Executive Director and Director and Company Secretary in anyway whatsoever as mentioned in the notice dated 17th August, 2006 issued by the defendant No.3 as the purported Managing Director of the Bihar Air Products Ltd., the plaintiff'No.l; (k) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants their servants and agents to convene any meeting ofthe Board ofDirectors and/or General Meeting and/or extra ordinary General Meeting and/or Annual General Meeting of Bihar Air Products Ltd. the plaintiff No. 1; (1) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants their servants and agents from taking resolution for withdrawal of any ofthe cases filed by the plaintiff No. 1 in several Courts; (m) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants their servants and agents from operating ofthe Bank account with the State Bank of India Bistupur Main Branch at Jamshedpur or any other Banks on behalf of the Bihar Air Products Ltd., the plaintiff'No.l in the said suit in the manner as indicated in the purported resolution passed at the alleged meeting ofthe Board ofDirectors of Bihar Air Products Ltd. held on Monday the 7th August, 2006 and as mentioned a copy thereof forwarded to the General Manager, State Bank of India Main Branch, Bistupur, Jamshedpur annexure ' ' to the plaint; (n) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 and from giving any effect or further effect to their purported resolution dated 7th August, 2006 and all other resolutions allegedly passed by them and further restraining them from asking the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Bistupur, Jamshedpur and in any other Bank or Banks for giving effect of the said purported resolutions; (o) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants their servants and agents from interfering with the day to day business of the plaintiff No.1 from preventing operation of any Bank Account with the State Bank of lndia, Main Branch, Bistupur, Jamshedpur and in any other Bank or Banks by the duly authorised officers of the plaintiff No. 1 in accordance with law; (p) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,9,10 and 11 from making any obstruction or obstructions to plaintiff No.2 to act as the Managing Director of the plaintiff No. 1 and to discharge his duties and further restraining them from making any obstruction of running the day to day business of the plaintiff No. 1 in any manner whatsoever; (q) Mandatory injunction directing (AOL) the defendant No. 1 and BSIDC the defendant No.6 and servants and agents, assigns and nominees to concur the appointment of Mr. S.S.Malik the plaintiff No.2 as the Managing Director of the plaintiff No.1 in accordance with law; ;