DAMODAR DASS Vs. MEHRAULI DEHAT TRANS CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order both applications one by petitioner & other by L.R.s of respondent No. 2 are disposed of.

(2.) The legal heirs of deceased respondent 2 in their application No. 418/90 have sought restraint order against the petitioner and his sons respondents 3 & 4 from surrendering tenancy premises bearing No. 18/1, Mehrauli, New Delhi. In the cross application being C A. No. 587/92, the petitioner has sought a similar direction against the legal heirs of respondent No. 2, wherein he has prayed that the two sons of late respondent No 2, Mr Ram Kumar Sharma have been misusing the company premises by running tea stall and that the landlord Shri Ram Dayal had been complaining about the same. That in collusion with Mr. J.N. Bakshi and Mr. Ram Dayal, co-owners of the property, the respondent 2 and now his legal representatives are going to surrender the possession of the premises. Respondent 2 was going to concede the eviction petition filed by the landlord u/S. 14(l)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act. That eviction petition must be stayed otherwise once the respondent 2 parted possession, the Company will lose that asset and suffer irreparable loss.

(3.) Facts: Petition is holder of 240 shares. Supported by the shares of respondents 3 & 4, he is in majority. He alongwith respondents 3 & 4 together hold 58% voting rights Initially in 1966, the Company had your directors. Out of them Sh. Madho Prasad, Sh. Sagar Dutt and Sh. Krishan Sarup, were removed from the directorship of the Company. Respondent 2 was then made Managing Director, and the petitioner was also inducted in the manage- ment of the Company. Thereafter, there had been round of litigations before the Company Law Tribunal as well as before the Company Judge, between the present petitioner and respondent 2. The petitioner had been demanding the meeting of the Directors and General Body Meeting He had also been asking for accounts for the various financial years. On his request, respondent 2 prepared the accounts upto 31.3.74. The said accounts have not till date been filed with the Registrar of Companies. The petitioner and respondents 3 & 4 have been kept at bay in the running of the affairs of the company. Respondent 2 had virtually converted the company into a one man show. He has not rendered the accounts since 1.4.74 He became de-facto proprietor of the company. The tenancy right of the premises No. 18/4, Mehrauli which vested with the company had been converted in the personal name of respondent 2 without any authorisation of the Board of Directors. The entire assets of the company have been converted as a proprietory business of respondent 2. Hence the petition.