KULJINDER SINGH AHLUWALIA Vs. SANDEEP KAUR AHLUWALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY an order dated 2nd February, 2009, it was directed that this Appeal be heard finally at the stage of admission itself. Hence, Admit. All Respondents waive service. By consent, heard finally at this stage.

(2.) KULJINDER Singh Ahluwalia, Plaintiff (Appellant herein), filed a Suit for declaration that 33,24,400 shares of M/s. Mukat Pipes Limited, Defendant No. 4, Respondent No. 4 herein, are the property of M/s. Muktanandan Corporation, a partnership firmDefendant No. 3, Respondent No. 3 herein, of which the PlaintiffKuljinder Singh Ahluwalia, Defendant No. 1 Smt. Sandeep Kaur Ahluwalia and Defendant No. 2, Ravinder Singh Ahluwalia are the partners in equal share. It was further prayed in the said Suit that the transfer/transmission of the said shares of Defendant No. 4Company in favour of Defendant No. 1 Smt. Sandeep Kaur Ahluwalia be cancelled and also for a permanent injunction to restrain Defendant No. 1 from exercising any rights as a shareholder or receiving any benefits in relation to the said shares. A distinct and separate prayer was also made in the Suit praying for a declaration that the appointment of Defendant Nos. 1 and 5 as Directors of Defendant No. 4Company was illegal and void and that they should be restrained by a permanent order and injunction from acting as Directors or holding themselves out as Directors of the said Company in pursuance to their appointment at alleged meeting of the Board of Directors held on 8th March 2007. Interim order of injunction and appointment of Receiver was also prayed.

(3.) AS is evident from the above that Resolution dated 5th December, 2005 of the Board of Directors of Defendant No. 4Company was set aside with certain directions. Aggrieved by the said order dated 14th February, 2007, the Plaintiff and Respondent No. 2 filed Company Appeals bearing Nos. 8 and 9 of 2007 before the High Court. However, in the meanwhile, vide Resolution dated 8th March, 2007 Defendant No. 6 in collusion with Respondent Nos. 1 and 5 had called a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Defendant No. 4Company and Defendant Nos. 1 and 5 were appointed as Directors of the said Company. The Company Appeals were disposed of by the High Court vide its order dated 4th May, 2007 holding that the Plaintiff was at liberty to file a civil suit in respect of shares and that Defendant No. 1 was not to alienate or transfer the said shares except to discharge the dues of I.D.B.I. and general body meeting of Defendant No. 4 was to be held. All these terms were incorporated in the consent terms. Notice of the meeting of the Board of Directors of Defendant No. 4 Company was issued on 4th May, 2007 which was objected to by the Plaintiff on the ground that the notice has not been issued properly and there was short and insufficient notice. Thereafter, the present Suit i.e. Suit No. 1453 of 2007 was filed for claiming the reliefs aforenoticed. A Notice of Motion No. 2012 of 2007 was taken out and besides injunction also prayer for appointment of Receiver was made. This Notice of Motion came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge and the Court vide the impugned order dated 16th December, 2008 took a view that the suit fell within the mischief of Section 69(1) of the Partnership Act, 1932 and as the partnership was not registered the suit was barred. Thus, the learned Single Judge not only rejected the Notice of Motion but even dismissed the suit as not maintainable. This Appeal has been directed against that order.