ASHOK SEHGAL Vs. J K BERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly the facts leading to the filing of the present contempt petition by Sarvshri Ashok Sehgal and K.K. Sehgal may be noticed.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1, Shri Ashok Sehgal, alleges himself to be the Director of M/s. Leader Engineering Works, Industrial Area, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'), whereas petitioner No. 2 Shri K.K. Sehgal alleges himself to be the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Company for the last many years. It is alleged that a suit had been filed by the petitioners in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Jalandhar, on September 22, 1994 against the other Directors of the company, namely, Mr. J.K. Beri, Mrs. Purnima Beri, Mr. Davinder Kumar Sehgal, Mr. Vinod Kumar Sehgal, Mr. Parmodh Kumar Sehgal, Mr. B.N. Beri, Mrs. Sarla Beri and Mr. Dheeraj Beri. The suit was for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from holding any meeting of the Board of Directors and passing any resolution in the proposed meeting to be held at 3 P.M. on the same day i.e. September 22, 1994 which was illegal, wrong and against the provisions of law. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code was also filed for the grant of temporary injunction.

(3.) The suit was entrusted to the Sub-Judge, IInd class, Jalandhar, who after hearing the counsel for the plaintiffs as also counsel for the respondents (who had put in a caveat) ordered on September 22, 1994 that the parties are directed to maintain 'status quo' till September 29, 1994. The counsel for the plaintiffs had argued before the trial Court that the respondents-defendants had convened a meeting for which proper notice had not been given to all the Directors according to law and the defendants should be restrained from removing Shri K.K. Sehgal from the office of Chairman-cum-Managing, Director of the Company. The allegation made in the present petition is that in spite of the 'status quo' order having been passed by the trial Court on September 22, 1994, respondents went ahead with the holding of the meeting even after the factum of the passing of the order by the trial Court had been brought to their notice. It has further been alleged in the petition that respondent No. 1 had appeared along with his counsel before the trial Court on September 22, 1994 when the order was passed. It has also been averred that the respondents had due knowledge of the 'status quo' order passed by the trial Court. Still further, the allegation is that the petitioners requested the respondents not to hold the meeting of the Board of Directors in view of the passing of the order by the trial Court but inspite of that, in complete violation of the order of the trial Court, the respondents went ahead to hold the meeting. It may be observed here that the petitioner have appended a part of the minutes of the meeting allegedly held by the respondents on September 22, 1994, which, read as under :