DARIUS RUTTON KAVASMANECK Vs. GHARDA CHEMICALS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Chamber Summons, the applicants seek impleadment as party defendants in the above suit. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this chamber summons are as under :-

(2.) The applicants hold approximately 6.3 % of the shares of the defendant no.1. The original plaintiff no.1 and D.R.Kawasmaneck who is now plaintiff jointly held 17% of shares of defendant no.1 company. It is case of the plaintiff that the defendant no.2 and two other parties controlled by defendant no.2 and Mrs.K.S.Gharda holds 60% shares of defendant no.1 company.

(3.) The plaintiff has filed this suit for a declaration that the patents enumerated in Ex.J to the plaint and that to be disclosed belongs to the 1st defendant and that the 2nd defendant has no right or interest in respect thereof or any of them and seeks order and decree directing the 2nd defendant to assign and transfer the patent enumerated in Ex.J and to be disclosed to the 1st defendant without any consideration or compensation. It is case of the plaintiff in the plaint that a patent for manufacturing Phosphaorous Trichloride Phosphaorous Pentachloride and cement came to be registered in the name of the 2nd defendant and instead of securing the patent rights in the name of the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant wrongfully secured several patents and have applied for several patents in his individual name. It is case of the plaintiff that the 2nd defendant owes and controls the majority of the equity shares in the 1st defendant and any resolution moved by the plaintiff that the 1st defendant should initiate action against 2nd defendant will be obviously defeated and therefore the plaintiff has filed the suit as a derivative action. There are several litigations filed and pending between the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 and 2 in various courts.