Arindam Mukherjee, J. - (1.) One Dedraj Chowdhury since deceased and his wife Triveni Chowdhury filed a suit being Suit No. 410 of 1992, inter alia, claiming the following reliefs:- "(a) Declaration that the document forming Annexure "G" hereto is illegal, null and void and not binding on the petitioners; (b) Decree for delivery up of the document forming Annexure "G" hereto and the said be cancelled and adjudged void by this Hon'ble Court; (c) Perpetual injunction restraining the respondents and each one of them, their servants, agents and assigns from acting upon or giving any effect to the document forming Annexure "G" hereto in any manner whatsoever; (d) Perpetual injunction restraining the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from exercising any control or interfering or intermeddling with the management and affairs of the company; (e) Receiver; (f) Interlocutory injunction; (g) Costs; (h) Further or other reliefs;"
(2.) In the said suit Dedraj Chowdhury and Triveni Chowdhury impleaded there two sons, namely, Binod Kumar Agarwal and Sushil Kumar Chowdhury as the first and second defendant respectively. Sushil's son Sanjay was impleaded as defendant no. 3, while Ringtong Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. wherein the Chowdhury family held substantial shares was impleaded as defendant no.4. Sushil's wife Sarada Devi Chowdhury on being found to be a party was added as the 5th defendant at the appellate stage.
(3.) Records reveal that a suit was filed in this Court in 1991 being suit no. 642 of 1991 inter se by and between the members of the Chowdhury family including the companies owned by them. This suit was settled out of the Court and the suit was disposed of in terms of the settlement on 24th September, 1991. The disputes, however, despite the settlement in the suit of 1991 were still not resolved and the difference persistent. The disputes were referred to one Mr. O.P. Mittal for reconciliation. The said disputes were again resolved by a right dated 18th October, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Mittal Settlement') being Annexure- G to the subsequent suit being Suit No. 410 of 1992.;