BIVA PYNE Vs. CHUNILAL PYNE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in a suit relating to the management and administration of the fourth defendant company complain that the fourth defendant and/or persons in control thereof have acted in derogation of an order passed in the suit on September 18, 2006.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs, the order of September 18, 2006 required the fourth defendant to issue a fortnight's prior intimation to the Advocate-on-Record of the plaintiffs, in the event the fourth defendant sought to alienate any property standing in its name. The plaintiffs complain that sometime last week, unknown persons came to take possession of the property at Khardah which the plaintiffs knew to be standing in the name of the defendant company. The plaintiffs allege that the plaintiffs were in position to resist possession of the Khardah property being taken up and the plaintiffs could approach Court only on February 13, 2008 as the Court was closed on the Monday and Tuesday of this week.

(3.) ON February 13, 2008, a Special Officer was appointed and the Special officer was requested to visit the Khardah property on the same day. The special Officer visited the property at or about 9 p. m. and has filed a detailed report. According to the Special Officer's report, some of the persons present at the Khardah property disclosed to the Special Officer that possession thereof had been made over by the company or its directors on or about January 31, 2008. The Special Officer was referred to conveyances having been executed in favour of various entities on or about January 31, 2008. The plaintiffs have also referred to certain documents having been executed and claim that in the melee that followed the plaintiffs' resistance to the wrongful attempt to take possession on or about February 8, 2008, a file containing such documents was left behind by those attempting to take possession of the property.