( 1 ) CP 1/82, as is clear from its number, was filed in the year 1982. To be precise, on 4th January, 1982. This petition is preferred under Sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the COMPANIES ACT, 1956 alleging acts of oppression and mismanagement on the part of respondents no. 2 to 6. Prayer made in the petition is the following:-

(I) s/shri Kamal Kishore Arora, Kishan Chand Arora, Pran Nath Arora and ram Nath Arora have vacated their offices of directors w. e. f. , 10th September, 1981; (ii) petitioner no. 1 Shri Rajdhey Shyam Gupta be appointed as Chairman of the Company. (iii) petitioner no. 2 Shri Shyam Sunder Gupta be appointed as Managing director of the Company; (iv) a Local Commissioner be appointed to immediately prepare an inventory of all assets and stocks of the Company, to take into custody the statutory books, account books and records of the Company, and to sign books of accounts of the Company at such places as may be indicated by Petitioners or their Advocate; (v) petitioners be authorized to appoint at least three persons as security guards to protect the assets of the company; and (vi) Such other or further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be passed.

( 2 ) IT may be noted that the respondent had taken objection to the maintainability of this petition. Arguments were heard by the Company Judge on this aspect and vide order dated 7th February, 1984 it was held that the petition as framed, was not maintainable. It was accordingly dismissed. The petitioners however, took the matter in appeal. The Division Bench allowed this Company Appeal no. 8/84 vide judgment and order dated 26th November, 1998. Judgment of the Single Judge was reversed and petition was held to be maintainable. Parties were directed to appear before the Company Judge on 11th January, 1999. After remitting the case to this Court, the Court passed orders from time to time directing the parties to complete the pleadings and it was also directed that evidence be filed by the parties by way of affidavits. The petitioner not filed his affidavit dated 21st October, 2002. The respondent filed evidence by way of affidavit thereafter on 16th November, 2002.

( 3 ) AS during the pendency of these proceedings the respondent no. , 3 died, his LRs were brought on record and they took some time to file the affidavit by way of evidence. However, on October 23, 2003, counsel for the LRs of the respondent no. 3 made a statement that LRs do not intend to file any affidavit by way of evidence. As other affidavits were on record, matter was listed before Joint Registrar on 2nd December, 2003 for recording cross-examination of the deponent of these affidavits. This cross-examination could not take place as on 10th March, 2004, counsel for the petitioner made a statement that she would be filing fresh affidavit as the witness had expired. This witness is none else than the petitioner no. 1. Thereafter CA 1194/04 was filed for bringing the LRs of petitioner no. 1 on record who died on 7th February, 2004. Although, this application was filed on 12th March, 2004 i. e. , well within stipulated period of limitation, but no steps were taken for getting this application listed. The registry of this Court had raised certain objections which were not removed. It was taken back from the registry after a lapse of almost seven months i. e. , on 5th October, 2004 and the objections were removed thereafter. That too when the respondent filed CA 1164/04 for disposing of the company petition treating the same having been abated as steps for bringing LRs of the petitioner no. 1 were not taken. When the notice in this CA was issued, the petitioner s counsel removed the objection in the application and got it listed. It is, in these circumstances, two applications were heard together namely 1194/04 for bringing LRs of petitioner on record and CA 1164/04 of the respondent praying for disposing of the petition as abated.

( 4 ) ON Novem