P N MAGAN Vs. KARMA PROCESSORS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs one Sh. P.C. Magon and Sh. D.K. Magon have instituted the above suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, seeking inter alia a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.l Company M/S. Karma Processors pvt. Ltd., from transfering the shares alloted to the plaintiffs in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 i.e. Sh. F.C.Dhawan and Sh. Rakesh Dhawan, and also from removing the plaintiffs from the post of the Managing Director and Director.

(2.) The plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 claim to have substantial shareholding in the defendant No.l Company. It is averred in the plaint that since the plaintiffs were involved also in the other running business in Agra, the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 who were also directors, were also called upon to look after the affairs of defendant No.l Company. It is alleged that actions of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were detrimental to the interest of the share holders of defendant No.l. Disputes had arisen between the parties.

(3.) The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 wanted plaintiffs to be ousted so that they could run defendant No. I Company as per their whims and caprices. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 had since January, 1995 started demanding of the plaintiffs to resign from the Board of Directors and transfer their shares but the plaintiffs had declined. It is averred that on 4-2-1995, when the plaintiffs alongwith their brother Sh. Satish Magon were coming from their factory at 54, Industrial Estate, Nunhai, Agra some unidentified persons by threatening and pressurising the plaintiffs and their brother, obtained their signatures on blank as well as typed papers. The papers lying in the bag of Sh. Satish Magon, were also snatched. It is stated that sh. Satish Magon lodged a complaint with the police station concerned i.e. Etmadulla, Agra. The plaintiffs also informed the Registrar of Companies of the act of obtaining the signatures of the plaintiffs forcibly and under duress. The aforesaid acts were alleged to be at the instance of defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiffs' case being that aforesaid papers are sought to be misued by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 for transferring the sahres of plaintiffs and their family members and far ousting the plaitniffs from the Company.