VINEDALE DISTILLERIES LTD Vs. S K AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applications for change of court commissioner appointed vide order dated 13th February, 1995 in FAO(OS) 265/1994 by the Division Bench of this court and the IA No.1325/2004 under Section 340 CrPC are for consideration. The suit as well as several other suits connected therewith are inter alia with respect to the control and management of the company M/s Vinedale Distilleries Limited (the company) engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Indian made foreign liquor; the said company has its distillery at Hyderabad; at the time of the order dated 13th February, 1995 (supra) of the Division Bench there were primarily two groups claiming control of the said company i.e. the Sanman Distributors Group (Sanman Group) and the Aggarwal Group. Since then the Aggarwal Group has split into S.K. Aggarwal Group and A.K. Aggarwal Group. As such the arguments on the application for change of court commissioner have been addressed by the counsel for the said three groups.

(2.) THE facts need not be burden this order, having been set out in detail in the 147 pages of the order (supra) of the Division Bench. The appeal before the Division Bench was on transfer and against the order of a Single judge of the Bombay High Court on an application under Order 39 of the CPC. The Single Judge restrained the then consolidated Aggarwal Group from acting or representing or holding themselves out as directors of the said company and from interfering in the management of the said company and from entering into upon the registered office, administrative office, distillery of the company or from signing any cheques on behalf of or operating the bank accounts of the said company.

(3.) THE Division Bench of this court in the order supra, while returning a finding on the prima facie view of the respective claims of Sanman Group and the Aggarwal Group, held that ­ a. that both parties had produced conflicting circumstances/materials against each other; b. that it is not possible without cross examination of witnesses and examining the original documents/ accounts whether one or the other version is correct or who is speaking the truth. It was held that neither side had come forward with the whole truth and each side was unable to explain the weak points in its side but wants to point out the loopholes in the case of the opposite side. The Division Bench held that the only thing certain was that the Aggarwal Group was in management on 5th January, 1993 when the suit (out of order wherein appeal had arisen) was filed and that there was no plea of the Sanman Group that the Aggarwal Group was ousted by the Sanman Group from the management of the company. The Division Bench hence held that there was no prima facie proof that the Sanman Group ever came into management of the company or of the four investment companies on or after 9th October, 1991. The Division Bench held that there was enough material to show that the Aggarwal Group were and till then in management and control of the company but there were deficiencies in their case of title to the 100% share holding of the company; the original share certificates of the company or of the four investment companies were however found to be in the custody of the Sanman Group but serious deficiencies were also found in the case of the Sanman Group with regard to the takeover of the four investment companies by their group.