M R GOYAL Vs. USHA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Order will dispose of plaintiffs' application (IA 4800/97), filed under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as `the CPC') and the application (IA 5642/97), filed on behalf of defendant No. 1, under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 read with Section 151. CPC. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the above mentioned two applications lie in narrow compass. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, declaration and directions assailing the notice dated the 29th April, 1997 (Annexure-A), issued by defendant No. 1 Company, calling for the `Extraordinary General Meeting' (`EGM' for short) of the members of Usha International Limited on 29th May, 1997 with the prayer that a decree declaring that notice dated 29th April, 1997, issued by defendant No. 1 Company is bad in law and directing defendant No. 1 Company and/or its promoters to make an offer to the general public as envisaged by the Substantial Acquisitions of Shares and Takeovers Regulations 1997 and a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendant No. 2 directing defendant No. 2 to immediately initiate proceedings against defendant No. 1 Company in accordance with the SEBI Regulations, be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. It is also prayed that a mandatory order directing the defendants not to proceed with the EGM, proposed to be held on 29th May, 1997 pursuant to notice dated 29th April, 1997, be also passed. The plaintiffs have also prayed that a declaration be issued to the effect that defendant No. 1 has violated. the SEBI guidelines and that the defendant No. 1 is liable to make a public offer to the general public in terms of SEBI Regulations.

(2.) Alongwith the plaint, the plaintiffs have also filed an application (IA 4800/97) under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code with the prayer that an ad interim ex-parte injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendant No. 1, stalling the holding of EGM of defendant No. 1, scheduled for 29th May, 1997 pursuant to notice dated 29th April, 1997 be passed. It is also prayed that the exparte injunction as prayed in, para 8(a) of the application be confirmed in favour of the plaintiffs upon return of motion. The above mentioned application alongwith the Suit (Suit No. 11 28/97) came up for hearing for the first time before this Court on 27th May, 1997 and this Court after hearing the learned Counsel states as under:

(3.) Defendant No. 1 on 3.7.97 filed an application (IA 5642/97) under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code with the prayer that the order dated the 27th May, 1997, passed in IA 4800/97, be vacated.