REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

AKSHAY RAHEJA Appellant

V/S

Gopal Narang Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

V. NARASIMHA IYENGAR,OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF THE CITY HYGIENIC MILK SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED VS. THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE OF MADRAS,REPRESENTING D. SADASIVA RAO,AN INSOLVENT AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
SEAGER VS. COPYDEX LTD. [REFERRED TO]
DATTATRAYA SITARAM KULKARNI AND ORS. VS. SHANKAR MAHADJI KULKARNI [REFERRED TO]
LALIT MOHAN ROY AND ORS. VS. KISHORI MOHAN ROY AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI VS. AURORA PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
BACHA F GUZDAR BOMBAY VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
W O HOLLSWORTH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
W O HOLLSWORTH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
CHENNURU GAVARARAJU CHETTY VS. CHENNURU SITARAMAMURTHY CHETTY [REFERRED TO]
R K DALMIA VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
BASMATI DEVI SINCE DECEASED AND AFTER DEATH HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES VS. CHAMRU SAO [REFERRED TO]
VITHAL DASS VS. RUP CHAND [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WEST BENGAL VS. EAST COAST COMMERCIAL COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
DORAB CAWASJI WARDEN VS. COOMI SORAB WARDEN [REFERRED TO]
RV SANKARA KURUP VS. LEELAVATHY NAMBIAR [REFERRED TO]
NEW HORIZONS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SANGRAMSINH P GAEKWAD VS. SHANTADEVI P GEAKWAD [REFERRED TO]
FAQIR CHAND GULATI VS. UPPAL AGENCIES PVT LTD [REFERRED TO]
A Thulasi Bai Ammal VS. Punapakkam Ramakrishnappa Nattan alias Kanniappa Nattan [REFERRED TO]
ALBERT JUDAH JUDAH VS. RAMPADA GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANI AMMA VILASINI AMMA VS. EYO POULOSE OF VATTATHARA [REFERRED TO]
ZEE TELEFILMS LTD VS. SUNDIAL COMMUNICATION PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
VAISHNAV SHORILAL PURI VS. KISHOR KUNDAN SIPPY [REFERRED TO]
DEVA SHARMA VS. LAXMI NARAIN GADDODIA [REFERRED TO]
KAPIL CHOPRA VS. KUNAL DESHMUKH [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA KUMAR VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [REFERRED TO]
DARIUS RUTTON KAVASMANECK VS. GHARDA CHEMICALS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Parties:-

(2.) The suit is a derivative action, filed by the Rahejas for the benefit of Windsor in their capacity as shareholders. They seek re-transfer / re- conveyance of certain property at Thane, damages and/or other appropriate reliefs on account of the loss suffered by Windsor and consequently by the Rahejas, resulting from fraud said to be perpetrated by defendant nos.1 to 11, who have allegedly acted in collusion and caused a distress sale of the Thane property (suit property) under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002 (SARFAESI Act ) and in purchasing the suit property from defendant no.16 (HDFC) such that the property came to be beneficially held by the Narangs to the extent of 50%. Defendant nos.1 to 11 are alleged to have defrauded Windsor and the Rahejas by wrongfully depriving them of the suit property, while causing wrongful gain to defendant nos.1 to 11. Windsor is being managed by Rahejas and Narangs, who hold an equal stake and hence Windsor is unable to pass appropriate board resolutions for instituting proceedings in its own name. The Rahejas have contended that prior to filing of the suit, board resolutions had been circulated seeking initiation of legal proceedings against defendant nos.1 to 11; however, the said resolutions came to be blocked. The reliefs sought in the suit are against defendant nos.1 to 15. No relief is being sought against defendant no.16.

(3.) In the notice of motion, Rahejas seek;

Click here to view full judgment.

AKSHAY RAHEJA Vs. GOPAL NARANG

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address