ALFA HOME MAKERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. T BALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiff before the trial court aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A. filed by it seeking an order of temporary injunction against the 2nd respondent herein from alienating the suit property.

(2.) Brief facts are that the appellant filed the suit before the trial court stating that the appellant acquired 14 acres and 21.38 guntas of land (6.33.122 square feet) under various sale deeds and after getting the katha changed in respect of the said land, the appellant company formed a lay out known as ALFA PROMENADE consisting of approximately 155 sites of various dimensions and the plaintiff company disposed off approximately 54 sites to various purchasers whose names on the date of the sale deed having been mentioned in the plaint itself. Subsequently, the 1st respondent herein claiming to be one of the Directors of the company, sold the entire extent of land which included the sites already sold in favour of the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent was in the process of alienating suit A schedule property to third parties so as to defeat the rights of the plaintiff company as well as the purchasers of sites from plaintiff company and as such, the relief of injunction was sought in the I.A. filed, whereas the main prayer in the suit itself was to declare that the 1st respondent herein has no right to represent the plaintiff company as a Director and to declare the sale deed executed by the 1st respondent in respect of the A schedule property in favour of the 2nd respondent as not binding on the plaintiff company and also for permanent injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit B property which consists of remaining sites which the company had earlier not sold.

(3.) The respondent no.2 defended the suit of the plaintiff by contending that one Babu M. Koshy who claims to be one of the Directors of the plaintiff company was removed from the company and in respect of his removal, the said Director has also initiated proceedings before the High Court of Chennai in C.C.No.277/03 and therefore he sought among other things, the relief of declaring his removal from the Directorship as null and void and it is the further case of the respondent that subsequently the 1st respondent was appointed as Director of the company by the share holders on 28.2.02 and therefore above mentioned Babu Koshy could not have filed the present suit as he has no locus standi to act on behalf of the company and further the 1st respondent executed the sale deed in favour of the 2nd respondent on 12.7.04 and the present suit is filed only in 2005 and Babu Koshy has suppressed the fact of he having filed the suit before the High Court of Chennai challenging his removal from the company and as the sale deed was executed by one of the Directors of the plaintiff company i.e. 1st respondent herein, question of granting any relief to the plaintiff company does not arise. The very same grounds were also urged in the objections to I.A.I.