ARJUN CHOWDHRY Vs. ANKUR SACHDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against the impugned judgement of the learned single Judge dated 20. 4. 2009 convicting the appellants for violating the injunction order granted by the learned single Judge and against the order of sentence dated 25. 5. 2009 sentencing the appellants to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) weeks and attaching the properties mentioned in para 12 of the order dated 20. 4. 2009 which were sold contrary to the injunction order.

(2.) THE order of conviction and sentence in the contempt was delivered prior to the decision on the application for injunction and of vacation of stay. Appeals were preferred against the final order in the injunction applications which have been dealt with by us in detail in the judgement passed today in FAO (OS) No. 337/2009 and FAO (OS) No. 423/2009 and we have found merits in the case of the original plaintiffs. Insofar as the impugned order is concerned the learned single Judge has dealt at length with the factual controversy which is a fight between two groups claiming to run the company M/s. Capital Land builders Pvt. Ltd. Since we have decided the injunction applications today we do not deem it necessary to go into the details in the present order but suffice to say that an interim injunction was granted on 6. 10. 2006 restraining the appellants to represent themselves as shareholders/ representatives of the plaintiff company till further orders. It is during the currency of this injunction order that the appellants have dealt with the property of the company claiming to have authority as Directors to act on behalf of the company and a large number of plots were sold of as enlisted in the impugned order.

(3.) THE defence set forth by the appellants is that the injunction was obtained by the original plaintiffs by misrepresenting the facts and that original plaintiffs 2 to 4 had been removed as Directors of the company on 10. 3. 2006. This is stated to have occurred during the pendency of the petition filed by the society claiming rights to be recorded as shareholders in the register of members before the Company Law Board under Section 111 of the companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) without the claim being established. Various forms were filed and a meeting was sought to be held without complying with the provisions of the said Act. The appellants claim to have sold the land for the benefit of the company. The appellants admitted that they continued to represent themselves as representatives of the company by filing documents with the Registrar of Companies and an ingenious plea was raised that they had not been restrained to act as Directors despite the relief claimed in that behalf.