SUNIL JAGMOHANDAS SHAH Vs. SUNIL JAGMOHANDAS SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only issue arisen in this Interim Application is whether the 'Family Arrangement' will prevail over the provisions of Companies Act, 2013 and the statutory documents. The Plaintiff No.1 / Applicant No.1 contended that he has got a protection to hold the post of a director in Defendant No.4 Company, whereas Defendant Nos.1 to 4 contend that he can be removed from the post as per the provisions of the said Act. The issue has arisen on the background of his removal from the post as per the resolution dtd. 27/5/2023 passed by Defendant No.4. In fact, this happened when Commercial Intellectual Property Suit No.177 of 2023 was pending.

(2.) This was a suit filed by Defendant No.4 - Company against present two Plaintiffs and their Company by name Absolink Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. It was a suit for taking action for the acts committed by the present Plaintiff's through their Company for selling their products under the trade name of Defendant No.4. There was ex-parte injunction granted on 5/4/2023 and it was vacated on 3/7/2023. The Plaintiffs grievance is removal of Plaintiff No.1 from the post of director by taking disadvantage of the situation created as per the order dtd. 5/4/2023. Present Suit

(3.) That is why the present suit for declaration about 'Family Arrangement', mandatory and prohibitory injunction and other reliefs is filed. As such, the main relief is sought by Plaintiff No.1, whereas reliefs sought by him and his son Plaintiff No.2 are in the form of their reinstatement with Defendant No.4. No doubt, it is true that as per the law which exists today, a director cannot claim any protection dehors the provisions of Company Act, 2013. No doubt, if the Company is run as family business concern, there are certain equities which can be claimed by the members of the family who are the directors. After considering the submissions and going through the documents and the interpretation of the judgments, I am of the considered opinion that Plaintiff No.1 is entitled for ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Application . Though not both the Plaintiff's on the basis of their claim about employment with Defendant No.4. I will give reasons for the said decision hereinafter.