VINEET HANDA Vs. OZO MEDIA ESTATE LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While issuing notice of motion on 16/9/2016, following order was passed:-

(2.) Interim order was made in operation vide order dtd. 1/11/2018 passed by this Court and respondents No.1 and 3 were allowed to be served by means of substituted service under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC.

(3.) Material on record would show that initially a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners in the year 2006-07. The written statement was filed by the defendants only on 15/1/2015. The factum of fraud in respect of affairs of the company was pleaded and highlighted before the Company Law Board. Company Law Board vide its order dtd. 25/10/2013 relegated the plaintiffs to the remedy of civil suit as intricate questions of law and facts were involved before the Company Law Board. At the relevant time, since the suit filed by the plaintiffs was pending, therefore, the plaintiffs/petitioners thought it appropriate to amend the suit instead of filing fresh suit in view of cause of action accrued after the order dtd. 25/10/2013 passed by the Company Law Board.