IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
KRISHNA RAO, J.
Kunal Dalmia - Plaintiff
Versus
Nelson Sebastian & Anr. - Defendants
IA No. GA 1 of 2021 In CS 169 of 2021
Decided On : 05-07-2023
INJUNCTION - DEFAMATION - POWER OF ATTORNEY - REVOCATION - AGENCY - CONTRACT ACT, SECTION 202 - INTEREST OF AGENT - LITIGATION - MULTIPLICITY OF PROCEEDINGS: The Calcutta High Court dismissed an application for an injunction to restrain the defendants from publishing or circulating defamatory statements against the plaintiff, considering the ongoing litigation between the parties and the orders passed by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court in related matters.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, KAHM Industries Private Limited, filed a suit against the defendants, Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. and its directors, seeking an injunction to restrain them from publishing defamatory statements and seeking damages for defamation. The dispute arose from a series of litigations between the parties regarding the ownership and compensation rights of a property. The defendants had revoked a Power of Attorney granted to the plaintiff's representatives, leading to further disputes and legal proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court observed that there were several pending litigations between the parties before the City Civil Court and the High Court, including suits related to the agreement, Power of Attorney, and claims for compensation. The Division Bench of the High Court had earlier held that the cancellation of the Power of Attorney was prima facie illegal and that the plaintiff had a clear right to receive the compensation amount. The Supreme Court had also passed orders regarding the security to be furnished by the plaintiff and the withdrawal of the compensation amount.
Issues: 1. Whether the court should grant an injunction to restrain the defendants from publishing defamatory statements? 2. Whether the revocation of the Power of Attorney was valid and affected the plaintiff's rights? 3. Whether the ongoing litigation and orders passed by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court should be considered in deciding the present application.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on Section 202 of the Contract Act, which states that an agency cannot be terminated to the prejudice of the agent's interest in the subject-matter of the agency without an express contract. 2. The court noted that the revocation of the Power of Attorney was the subject matter of a pending suit before the High Court and was connected to other suits pending before the City Civil Court. 3. The court held that passing an injunction at this stage would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and would affect the orders passed in connection with other pending suits.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an injunction, considering the ongoing litigation and the orders passed by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court in related matters.
JUDGMENT :
(Krishna Rao, J.) :
1. The plaintiff has filed the present application praying for an injunction restraining the defendants, their men, their agents, assigns and representatives from publishing and circulating any letter, material, correspondence and articles containing the statements as mentioned in paragraph 34 of the present application.
2. The plaintiff is the Director of the business under the name and style of KAHM Industries Private Limited (formerly known as Lindsey Towers Private Limited) (hereinafter referred to as KAHM) having its registered office at 13, Nellie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata -700087.
3. The defendant no.1 is the Director and defendant no. 2 is the Managing Director of the Company namely Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. (Hereinafter referred to as Punalur).
4. There are several litigations pending before the learned 10th Bench of the City Civil Court, Kolkata as well as before this Court between KAHM and Punalur.
5. To adjudicate the present application filed by the plaintiff, the facts of the several litigations are pending before the Courts for adjudication is required to be narrated, which are as follows:
6. On May 15, 2010, an agreement was entered between Punalur and KAHM which not only acknowledges that the third parties became the majority shareholder of Punalur but also reaffirms and reiterates that KAHM would have the right to prosecute and defend all litigations and proceedings concerning the acquisition proceedings and would have the exclusive right to receive and recover the compensation amount in respect of portion of the suit property which were the subject-matter of litigation in the name of Punalur but at its cost and for such purposes, KAHM would be entitled to operate a separate Bank account being No. 0015-608737-060 (previous Account No. 200001818875) with IndusInd Bank situated at 3A, Upper Wood Street Branch, Kolkata in the name of Punalur for the purpose of depositing, realising and encashing the amount of such compensation and any other amount as may be received in respect of the portion of the suit property. The agreement also provided that Punalur would execute an irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of KAHM or its nominee authorising them to represent Punalur in all ITS litigations. The said agreement was signed by the majority shareholders of Punalur including Mr. T.K. Sundaresan, Chairman, whole time Director and one of the plaintiff in suit No. 613 of 2021.
7. By virtue of the minutes of meeting of the Board of Directors dated October 19, 2011, Shri T.K. Sundaresan being the whole time Director of Punalur executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. Kunal Dalmia and Mr. Ranoj Roy Chowdhury as the lawful Attorney of the Punalur. In terms of the agreement dated May 15, 2010 and the Power of Attorney executed in favour of the aforesaid two persons, compensation proceedings were pursued and out of several proceedings initiated, in one of such land acquisition proceeding concerning acquisition of the basement and ground floor of the property in question, a decree was passed on December 6, 2018 by the learned District Judge, Alipore in respect of LA Case No. 38 of 2007 for an amount of Rs. 27 crore. The State of West Bengal initiated an appeal against the said award and during the pendency of the appeal, on the submission made by the State of West Bengal that there was a mistake in calculation, instead of Rs. 27 crore, the figure should be Rs. 18,11,40,003/-and the Hon’ble Division Bench permitted Punalur to withdraw 50% of an amount without security and for release of the balance 50% of Rs. 18,11,40,003/-upon furnishing security was left open to be decided, if any, formal application is made by Punalur. As per the aforesaid order, Mr. Ranoj Roy Choudhury being one of the Power of Attorney holder of Punalur received the demand draft of Rs. 9,05,70,001.50/-on June 1, 2021 and deposited the said in the designated bank account.
8. The dispute started after the order dated Januar
An agency coupled with an interest cannot be revoked to the prejudice of the agent's interest without an express contract.
The cancellation of the power of attorney was illegal and established a clear right for the party to receive the compensation. The court permitted the party to retain and utilize the compensation amo....
A power of attorney can only be revoked by a registered document.
Compulsory Registrable Document – Under Power of Attorney Act, 1872, execution of a deed of Power of Attorney is valid in law and subject to the provisions of the Act, it is not a compulsorily regist....
Authorization for filing complaints under the N.I. Act is a curable defect; a company acts through its Board of Directors, and post-initiation ratification is permissible.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.