REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

MANIKYARAJ BALLAL Appellant

V/S

K. Jayaraja Ballal And Others Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

ABHOY CHANDRA MOOKERJEE V. MAHOMED SABIR. [REFERRED TO]
OBHOY CHANDRA MOOKERJEE V. MOHAMED SABIR [REFERRED TO]
RAJA OF KARVETNAGAR V. SOWCAR LODR,GOVIND DOSS [REFERRED TO]
SWAMIMTHA PILLAI V. RAGHAVACHARIAR. [REFERRED TO]
AMRITLAL N. SHAH V. V. NZGESWARA RAO. [REFERRED TO]
P. MANNADHA. V. MARAPPA. GOUNDER [REFERRED TO]
SWYANARAYANA V. ANKINEED PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
MUTHURAROL V. BHANWARHL [REFERRED TO]
PHUTANJA V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
VELU V. KUPPUSWAMI [REFERRED TO]
SUKUMAR V. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR MIRZA V. STATE [REFERRED TO]
D. PARAMESHWARAPPA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
NOGAMMAL V. MANI [REFERRED TO]
BHINKA VS. CHARAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
PYARE LAL BHARGAVA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
R H BHUTANI VS. MAN J DESAI [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
VIDYA RAM VS. GANGA SAHAI [REFERRED TO]
DEVI PRASAD VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
PADMARAJU SUBBA RAJU VS. PADMARAJU KONETI RAJU [REFERRED TO]
HAMID SHEIKH VS. NAZIR DAR [REFERRED TO]
BISSE GOWDA VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
VELUR DEVASTHANAM VS. A SAMBANDAMURTHI NAINAR [REFERRED TO]
MURALI PATEL VS. PURUSOTTAM BHATI [REFERRED TO]
GABRIAL THANKAYYAM VS. NARAYANAN NADAR PERUMAL NADAR [REFERRED TO]
WAZIR MAHTON VS. BADRI MAHTON [REFERRED TO]
SAMUEL POLITUS VS. AZIZ WILLIAM BISHOP [REFERRED TO]
GADAGAMMA VENKATAPATHI VS. BALIARSIMHUNI SANYASIRAJU [REFERRED TO]
HARI CHARAN DE VS. SHERALI TALUKDAR [REFERRED TO]
S M YAQUB VS. TNBASU [REFERRED TO]
V. M. ABDUL RAHMAN VS. KING-EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL CHANDRA MAZUMDAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions are preferred by Thiru Manikyaraja Ballal, the first counter petitioner in Case Nos. 2/80 and 1/80 respectively (A. 4/42459 and A. 4/42458 of 80 respectively) on the file of the District Magistrate and Collector of Madras, under S. 482, Crl. P.C. for quashing the entire proceedings takes therein.

(2.) AS the facts in both the petitions, except for a small variation, and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties are common, a common order is rendered.

(3.) THE petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 are brothers, of whom the first respondent is the eldest. The first respondent, in pursuance of a tripartite agreement, dt. 27th September, 1973, acquired the undertaking known as Hotel Palmgrove owned by Messrs. N. Satyanathan & Sons Private Limited and was appointed as a Director of the company on 29th August.1973. The entire share holdings held by the company were acquired by the first respondent and some others. Similarly, he has also acquired the controlling interest in Madras Hotel Ashoka (Private) Limited, who are the owners of the Hotel known as Hotel Ashoka at Egmore. The first respondent is also the chairman and Managing Director of this company. Apart from this, their family owns extensive plantations and transport business. Recently, the petitioner herein (Manikyaraji Ballal) and another, with a view to unlawfully exclude the first respondent from the control of the two Hotels, attempted to convene the General Body Meeting of Madras Hotel Ashoka Private Limited on 22nd April, 1980 and of M/s. N Sathyanathan and Sons Private Limited on 21st April, 19S0 but failed in that attempt.

Click here to view full judgment.

MANIKYARAJ BALLAL Vs. K. JAYARAJA BALLAL AND OTHERS

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address