M.R. Agnihotri, J. - (1.) IN this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by the Haryana Solvents Private Limited - -a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and its Managing Director the following questions arise for adjudication by this Court: (1) Whether the property of the Haryana Solvents Private Limited can be grabbed by one of its Directors -Respondent No. 2, by transferring the same in his own name and whether the statutory authorities are bound to give effect to such transfers; (2) Whether an industrial plot allotted by the Haryana Urban Development Authority in 1979. in the name of Haryana Solvents Private Limited, could be transferred in favour of M/s. Konark Cement Products Private Limited, without there being a proper resolution passed by Haryana Solvents Private Limited to that effect; (3) Whether the sale of the Land in dispute belonging to the Company by one of its Directors without any resolution empowering him to do so, was legally valid and in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, as well as the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977; (4) Whether transfer of the plot and the land in dispute by Respondent No 2 was ultra vires the powers of the Director of the Company, and, if so, whether the said transfer was liable to be declared illegal; (5) Whether after scrutiny of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of Haryana Solvents Private Limited, Petitioner No. 2 was entitled to be declared as a shareholder of the Company and whether his removal from the Directorship of the Company was valid in view of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956; (6) Whether necessary permission of the Registrar of the Companies was obtained before removing Petitioner No. 2 from the Directorship of the Company and, if not, what is its effect; and (7) Whether the averments made by Respondent No. 2 in his written statement and the verification appended thereto, regarding the properties belonging to the Haryana Solvents Private Limited, eg, the plot, land in dispute, etc. as well as about the position of Petitioner No. 2 as a Director or shareholder of the Company, are factually incorrect and against the records of the Company and, if so, does it not amount to forgery of documents of title and perjury thereby making Respondent No. 2 liable for punishment under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) IT has by now been settled by the Supreme Court, that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked only for the enforcement and not the establishment of a right. Therefore, where a serious dispute on questions of fact between the parties is raised and in particular the question arises, as to whether one of the parties has acquired any title to the property in dispute or not, proceedings by way of a writ are not appropriate. Examining the present case from this angle, I find that the pleadings of the parties and the documents produced along with the same in order to substantiate their rival contentions run into 375 pages. Moreover, in this voluminous record, even the basic facts are seriously disputed and claims and counter -claims hotly contested, giving rise to complicated questions of fact depending on evidence. In such circumstances, writ jurisdiction shall not be the proper forum for settling these disputes among the parties. Accordingly, in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction, I decline to go into the merits of the case and dismiss this petition, leaving the Petitioners if so advised to seek remedy in a Civil Court under the Companies Act, 1956. C.M. Nos. 5919 of 1987 and 10082 of 1988 are also dismissed as infructuous, in view of the dismissal of the main writ petition.
(3.) THERE shall be no order as to costs.;