PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LTD Vs. ANIL KUMAR PODDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs impute improper motive to the original defendants in their seeking to obtain copies or inspection of records that the Companies Act, 1956 permits them to ask for. The plaintiffs suggest that the requests made by the original defendants are mala fide, made with ulterior motive and there is no legal compulsion on the plaintiff companies to accede thereto.

(2.) The suit has been instituted with leave under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There are certain facts that need to be recorded without comment since no immediate issue is raised thereon. The leave under Order I Rule 8 of the Code was sought on the basis of the averment in the plaint as to the commonality of interest of the named plaintiffs with other unnamed companies. The plaintiffs have issued advertisements under Order I Rule 8 of the Code. The original defendants have not applied for revoking such leave, though their application for rejection of the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action has recently been dismissed. Several applications have been carried for taking other companies on board in this suit. The earlier applications have been allowed by adding the applicants on the plaintiffs' side despite the objection of the original plaintiffs. The added plaintiffs have been given a second voice, in that an order provides that the added plaintiffs would have separate representations. It is conceivable that this may lead to some embarrassment at the trial of the suit, but the trial of a suit is so distant that the parties may be excused for overlooking the possible conflict on the plaintiffs' side. In the subsequent applications for addition of parties, the applicants have been arrayed as defendants. An initial interim order was made in favour of the plaintiffs. Logically, and since the suit has been instituted in representative capacity for similarly-situated companies and since the order was not confined to the eo nomine plaintiffs, the other similarly-situated companies could have also taken advantage thereof. The interim order has recently been restricted to the eo nomine plaintiffs and the added defendants.

(3.) The case made out in the plaint and in the original plaintiffs' principal interlocutory application is that the request made by the original defendants was a form of extortion to pressurise the original plaintiffs and other companies similarly-situate to give in to the unjust and exorbitant demands of the original defendants. It is an admitted position that the original defendants (the first two in the amended plaint) made requests to the plaintiff companies to issue advertisements in a financial periodical published by the first defendant. The plaintiffs have carried copies of several editions of the first defendant's publication. They refer to the articles therein containing allegations against some of the plaintiff companies, making charges against statutory bodies and officials and even spewing venom on the judiciary. It is the plaintiffs' case that upon any company refusing to humour the first defendant by placing advertisements in his publication, the first defendant would cause baseless allegations to be published in his periodical. The plaintiffs say that notwithstanding the original defendants being shareholders in the plaintiff companies (and in other companies), the right to inspect records and receive copies of documents as mandated by statute would be tempered by the motive for such requests.