JYOTIRMOY DEY Vs. DACCA PICTURE PALACE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for an injunction restraining the Defendant No. 2, Sheikh Naseem Anwar, from acting as Director of the Defendant company Dacca Picture Palace Ltd. and/ or from usurping the functions of a Director of the Defendant company and/or from in any way participating in and/or interfering with the management and affairs of the Defendant company until the disposal of the suit. The other orders for injunction relate to restraining the Defendants from acting upon the resolution dated December 28, 1961, and from acting upon Power of Attorney dated January 13, 1962, and an injunction restraining the Defendant No. 2 from operating the banking account of the company.

(2.) The suit was instituted on June 29, 1962. The suit was instituted by the Plaintiffs in their individual capacity as also for and on behalf of other share-holders of the Defendant No. 1 except the Defendant No. 2, an alleged share-holder of the Defendant No. 1. The Plaintiffs ask for a declaration that the Defendant No. 2 is not a share-holder of the Defendant company and for rectification of the share register and for a declaration that the Defendant No. 2 is not a Director of the Defendant company and for an injunction restraining the Defendant No. 2 from acting as a Director and for a declaration that the resolution dated December 28,1961, is void and for a further declaration that the Power of Attorney dated January 13, 1962, is null and void and for consequential relief s founded thereon.

(3.) At the outset it should be stated that though the suit is instituted for self and on behalf of other share-holders no leave under Order 1, Rule 8 has been obtained though it is claimed in the plaint. Such leave is a judicial act. It is imperative that leave should be obtained. The provisions of Order 1, Rule 8 further require service of notice under Order 1, Rule 8. There is no such service under Order 1, Rule 8. Such service is equally imperative.