G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) ALL the above C. R. Ps. are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The common point that arises for consideration in all the C. R. Ps. is whether the pendency of a company petition is a bar for the institution of civil suit.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the order passed by the High Court in Company petition No. 22 of 1991 amounts to the matter kept pending in the High Court under the Companies Act and that any other matter touching the affairs of the very same matter cannot be allowed to be filed or tried by the Civil Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that matters which are not touching Section 10 of the Companies Act can be filed in the Civil Court to get the appropriate relief as the Civil Court s jurisdiction is not barred.

( 3 ) C. R. P. No. 4206 of 1992 arises out of the suit O. S. No. 709 of 1991 filed by the respondent herein against the petitioners, with the prayer for a declaration that in view of the validly held annual general meeting of the 1st defendant on 2-11-1991, the attempt of defendants 2 and 3 to hold yet another such meeting ignoring the same is illegal, ultravires, mala fide and therefore, such an attempt is void; for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from holding any general meeting on 31-12-1991 or on any future date naming the same as annual general meeting of the 1st defendant for the year 1990-91. Similarly c. R. P. No. 4207 of 1992 arises out of O. S. 729 of 1991 the prayer of which being for a declaration that the alleged resolutions of the alleged Board of Directors meeting dated 28-11-1991 and the adjourned Board meeting on 6-12-1991 since are against the resolutions of the annual general meeting dated 2-11-1991 are void, illegal and therefore liable to be held as void and illegal and for a consequential injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd defendants from doing anything pursuant to such resolutions. C. R. P. No. 4208 of 1992 arises out of o. P. 521 of 1991. The prayer in this O. P. is for a direction to the 1st respondent to make over all the fruits of the Trusts to the petitioner including the shares, moneys, F. D. Rs. , the Trust is holding in the 3rd respondent or in the alternative for removal of the 2nd respondent as trustee of the 1st respondent-Trust and for appointment of 4th respondent as a trustee of the 1st respondent or any other suitable competent person as Trustee of the 1st respondent till the petitioner attains the age of 25 years. Like wise, C. R. P. No. 4209 of 1992 is a consequence of the suit O. S. No. 3219 of 1992 and the prayer in this suit is to issue permanent injunction restraining defendants 2 and 3 from holding, conducting and passing any resolutions in pursuance of the notice dated 27-8-1992 or any similar notice to be issued by defendants 2 and 3 in future, and further to declare that the notice dated 27-8-1992 is null and void and is in contravention of the provisions of the companies Act. Similarly C. R. P. No,4211 of 1992 arises out of O. S. 125 of 1992 which is filed for a declaration that the purported Extra-ordinary General meeting dated 27-2-1991 of the 1st defendant is a fiction and therefore the said resolutions are void and are liable to be set aside and for a consequential injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 from doing anything pursuant to such resolutions. Basing on the above prayers, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction as the matter is pending in the High Court on the company side. On the other hand, as already stated above, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the Civil court is competent to entertain the suits as the prayers or the reliefs sought for in those suits are not touching any of the provisions of Section 10 of the companies Act. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is that Article 227 of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document