RANJIT N. MAJMUDAR Vs. ASHUTOSH R. MAJMUDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal admitted, by consent, made returnable forthwith.

(2.) At the outset, we make it clear that the Appeal was for admission and' when it came up for admission, it was felt that if the same was admitted, in respect of interim relief, the parties will be required to address the Court at length. Therefore, the parties were permitted to address the Court at length and the Appeal itself was heard for final hearing. It is also necessary to mention that after the matter was fully argued, the matter was kept for orders on 6-3-1996 when we sought certain clarifications from both the counsels and the clarifications were given today and they were heard on the same.

(3.) The present Appeal arises out of an order of the learned Single Judge dated 22-8-1995. In the present judgment, parties will be referred to in the same manner as they are described in the plaint. The learned Single Judge has allowed the Notice of Motion No. 2093 of 1993 taken out by the Plaintiff. By the said Notice of Motion, the Plaintiff had inter alia prayed for relief in respect of 840 shares issued by the Defendant No. 4 (as Puspaj). It was prayed in the Notice of Motion that the Defendant No. 2 be restrained from acting upon or in furtherance of the said issue and allotment of 840 shares that Puspaj be restrained from in manner acting upon or in furtherance of the said issue and/or re-organising Defendant No. 2 or anyone else as the holders of or being entitled to any rights or benefits in relation to the said 840 shares and that Court Receiver be appointed of the said shares. The learned Single Judge by her order under challenge has made the Notice of Motion absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). Thus, injunctions as prayed for and as described above have been granted. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Appellants, i.e., original Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have preferred the present Appeal.