RAMANLAL MADANLAL Vs. BENI LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Sec. 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 ('the Act'). This application is made by way of a judge's summons with a supporting affidavit by one Sri Daulal Fomra on behalf of Raman Lal Madanlal, a registered partnership firm having its registered office at Ezra Park, Kamarhatty, P.S. Baranagar, 24 Parganas (North).

(2.) There was a suit being Title Suit No. 71 of 1960 before the Subordinate Judge (the designation then was) District Court, Alipore, 24 Parganas, for ejectment of the applicant by the official trustee as owner of the premises, being numbered 117, Barrackpore Trunk Road, Kamarhatty, 24 Parganas(N), inter alia, on the grounds that the official trustee as owner of the premises leased out 40 bighas of land to one known as Beni Engineering for a period of 51 years and also let out the front portion of the premises with effect from 1 -6 -1950 on the terms and conditions set out in the letter relevant for the purpose. It was alleged that Beni Engineering had sublet the said front portion to the applicant herein and, thus, the said official trustee sought eviction of the applicant herein along with Beni Engineering from the said front portion of the said premises. By a judgment and order dated 28 -2 -1972, the Court was pleased to dismiss the suit of contest with costs. The official trustee preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 429 of 1972 in the Court of the Second Additional District Judge, 24, Parganas, Alipore. A cross -objection was also filed by the lessee -company. The appeal was allowed but the cross -appeal/ objection was rejected. The suit was decreed on contest. The applicant and the company were given time up to 31 -5 -1973, to vacate the premises with their structures erected by them and deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. Liberty was also granted to demolish the structures erected by the defendants therein in the suit premises.

(3.) Being aggrieved thereby, a second appeal was preferred in this High Court being No. 276 of 1974. Initially the decree was stayed. Subsequently, the suit was dismissed for non -prosecution on 8 -8 -1990. Thereafter an application for restoration was filed which was disposed of on 17 -7 -1998, by recalling the appeal and restoring it in original position.