LAWS(DLH)-1986-12-28

T L ARORA Vs. GANGA RAM AGARWAL

Decided On December 11, 1986
T.L.ARORA Appellant
V/S
GANGA RAM AGARWAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order I propose to dispose of I.A. 4625186 which has been filed by defendants 1, 2, 3, 6 & 7 under Section 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for stay of the suit on the allegation- that plaintiffs have filed this suit for declaration to the effect E that plaintiff No. I is a validly renominated director of defendant No. 7-company and the plaintiffs have also filed petitions under Section 408 & Section 409 of the Companies Act before the Company Law Board on 25th April 1986 on identically similar pleadings as in the above suit and the two reliefs claimed in the said petitions before the Company Law Board are identically similar to the relief claimed in the above suit and as such the proceedings in this suit be stayed till further orders under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application is opposed on behalf of the plaintiffs on the ground that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application; to the facts of this case. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file and after giving my considered thought to the matter before me I have come to the following findings.

(2.) This application has been filed in this suit filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration that plaintiff No. I is a validiv renominated director of defendant No. 7-company on the allegations that plaintiff No. I was a director of defendant No. 7 and at the annual general meeting held on 31st March 1986, he was to retire by rotation and was to be re-elected as director thereof being the sole representative of MRI grop and being in possession of majority support of other local Indian shareholders in the form of proxy but defendant No. 1 in conspiracy with defendants 2 to 4 and two other directors objected to the renomination of plaintiff No. 1 as director and defendant No. 1 with the support of his employee directors and other bogus share-holders had forged proceedings of the meeting in the minutes book which has cast a cloud on the right of plaintiff No. I and other plaintiffs and on the status and title of plaintiff No. 1.

(3.) Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under :