AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
On the last date of hearing while issuing notice of the petition we did not grant any interim relief at that stage as the respondents were not before us and left it open to be considered after the service of Court notice.
On behalf of the respondents, Mr. R. Chandrachur, Ld. Counsel has put in appearance and we have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties for purposes of interim relief.
Mr. Kalia, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has asserted that the petitioners have 93% shareholding in the respondent No. 1 company and has also been working as a director-petitioner No. 1. There are allegations of his resignation dated 06.12.2018 which has also been uploaded on the website of MCA and he is alleged to have come back as a director on 07.06.2019 by virtue of a resolution passed by the respondent company. Mr. Kalia, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that ICICI Bank accounts have been opened with proper authorisation and other accounts of Union Bank of India has been illegally opened which is being operated by respondent No. 2 & 3 alone. According to Ld. Counsel, amount is being withdrawn for their personal use and in that regard, entries dated 29.06.2019, 04.06.2019, 03.06.2019 & 07.06.2019 in the bank account of Union Bank and others have been highlighted.
However, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that the so-called resolution dated 07.06.2019 re-inducted the petitioner No. 1 as Director is a fabricated document as it was obtained by the petitioner after abduction of respondent No. 2. Obviously, he suggests that Saurabh Kumar Pandey was forced to sign the aforesaid documents and, therefore, he cannot be regarded as a Director. In response to unlawful opening of the bank account in the Union Bank of India (P-18), a soft copy of resolution dated 08.03.2019 has been shown to us and it was argued that the aforesaid resolution has been duly passed and the bank account has been opened thereafter.
Having heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties, we find that there are allegations and counter allegations of personal trespass, fabrication and others. Respondent No. 2 is stated to be in police custody currently and for that reason longer period for filing reply has also been sought. With regard to the Union Bank of India account No. 644501010050297 at Branch 116 117 Vijaipur, Faizabad Road, Vibhuti Khand Gomtinagar Lucknow, it has been argued that the account has been opened in the regular course of business on the basis of a proper resolution. However, the various entries highlighted by counsel for the petitioner show that amounts have been withdrawn by the petitioner for personal use instead of directing the amount to be disbursed to a corporate entity for the purpose of spending towards building infrastructure project. Therefore, we deem it necessary to issue interim directions to protect the interest of the company-respondent No. 1. Accordingly, we direct that no amount be withdrawn from any of the account by respondent No. 2 or 3 or jointly by them unless it is to be paid towards expenditure incurred on the infrastructure project. The details of any amount disbursed from the accounts of the Union Bank of India & ICICI Bank be placed before us with the written statement to be filed within four weeks by the respondent with a copy in advance to the counsel opposite.
Rejoinder to the written statement be filed within two weeks thereafter with a copy in advance to the counsel opposite.
On the request made by Mr. Kalia, Ld. Counsel, ROC is impleaded as a party respondent and the same be styled as under:-
"Union of India through the ROC, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, 4th Floor, IFCI Tower, 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.
Mr. Kalia, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner shall serve a copy of the petition on the ROC by dasti process."
List for arguments on 01.10.2019.