ORDER
A. V. Savant, J.
1. Heard both the learned Counsel, Shri Naphade for the appellant (original defendant) and Shri Thorat for the respondents (original plaintiffs).
2. This appeal is against the Order dated 23rd March 1995 passed by the learned single Judge in Civil Application No. 349 of 1995 in pending appeal from Order No. 93 of 1995. Appeal from Order No. 93 of 1995 was admitted on the 7th Feb. 1995 and in Civil Application No. 349 of 1995 interim relief in terms of prayers (a) and (b) was granted on the same day and the same was made absolute by disposing of the Civil Application on 23rd March, 1995. Thus, the Appeal is against the order granting interim relief in a pending appeal from order, which appeal is admittedly under Section 104 read with Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Proce-dure. A few facts necessary for the disposal ofthis appeal may be stated as under:--
3. Respondent No. 1 Bombay Diocesan Trust Association Pvt. Ltd. is a Companyincorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and is also a Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. There are 15 elected directors/trustees on the Board. The appellant Robert Punaji Salvi was the former Secretary of the first respondent plaintiff Company till 28th Sept. 1994. The 65th Annual General Meeting of the first respondent Company was scheduled to be held at about 12-00 noon on 28th Sept. 1994. By that time, 8 directors were present. The quoram required for the meeting is 10. Two directors, respondents No. 2 and 3, informed the other directors that two more directors were on their way to the meeting and were delayed due to the hold-ups in traffic. However, the request of the majority of directors for delaying the commencement of the meeting was turned down and the appellant arbitrarily typed out a Circular adjouring the meeting and walked out of the room, along with the another director Shri S.T. Amolik.
4. The other two directors who were delayed viz. Mr. Bhalerao and Mis. Inayat reached the venue of the meeting by 10 past 12 noon. The directors, who were present addressed a letter calling upon the appellant to attend the meeting at 2 p.m. on the same day. The letter was received by the appellant by 1 p.m., but he refused to attend the meeting. The rest of the directors held the meeting at 2 p.m. on Sept. 28, 1994 and the second respondent, Reverend P.B. Amolik was elected as the Secretary in place of the appellant and the 3rd respondent Charles Kemkar was retained as the Honorary Treasurer. All the 15 directors continued to be the directors as before, including the appellant.
5. On 26th Oct. 1994 the appellant purported to hold a separate meeting without any authority and with only three directors present at the said meeting, 5 directors were purported to be removed and 2 were sought to be appointed afresh without complying with the provisions contained in the Companies Act. The appellant issued a notice on the 1stNov. 1994 purporting to convene a meeting of the Board of Directors at 12 noon on the 16th Nov. 1994. This led to the filing of the suit, being S.C. Suit No. 6865 of 1994 by the respondents-plaintiffs in the City Civil Court, Bombay, on the 14th Nov. 1994. The reliefs prayed for in the said suit are to the effect that the 65th Annual General Meeting held on the 28th Sept. 1994 was legal and valid; the metting purported to have been held on the 26th Oct. 1994 by the appellant was illegal and improper, and that the removal of 5 directors viz. Reverend P.B. Amolik, Mr. Woodman, Mr. Balid, Ms. Inayat and Mr. Chacko was illegal, bad in law, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs. Further relief that is prayed for is that the appointment of the two new directors/trustees Mr. Asari and Mr. Rubadi was illegal, null and void. The plaintiffs therefore prayed for an injunction restraining the defendant (present appellant) from in any manner, interfering with the right of the plaintiffs N os. 2 and 3 to function as the office-bearers of the first plaintiff company. Pending the hearing and disposal of the suit, an injunction was prayed for restraining the defendant, his servants, agents from conducting any business of the first plaintiff company, including calling of any meeting etc.
6. On the 16th Nov. 1994, Notice of Motion No. 5545 of 1994 for interim relief in the said suit was adjourned to 28th Nov. 1994. Since 28th Nov. happened to be Maharashtra Bandh, the Motion was adjourned to 19th January, 1995. In view of the urgency made out by the plaintiffs, the hearing was postponed to 12th Dec. 1994. Appeal from Order No. 1461 of 1994 was filed by the plaintiffs since they apprehended some mischief by the defendant. But this Court, on 5th Dec. 1994, declined to interfere in the matter pending the Motion and directed that the Motion should be heard peremptorily and should be disposed of early.
7. Notice of Motion No. 5545 of 1994 was heard on the 19th Dec. 1994 and interim relief was refused. The plaintiffs have filed Appeal from Order No. 93 of 1995, which, as stated earlier, has been admitted on the 7th Feb. 1995. The said A.O. is pending. C.A. No. 349of 1995 was taken out for reliefs in terms of prayers (a) and (b). Prayers (a) and (b) read as under:
'(a) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the above appeal, the respondent through his sons and agents, servants and representatives be restrained by an order and injunction from interfering in any manner with the applicants Nos. 2 and 3 functioning as office bearers of the first applicant company.
(b) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal, the respondent through his sons, agents, servants and representatives, be restrained by an order and injunction from conducting any business whatsoever of the first applicant company as an office bearer including convening any meeting'.
This reliefs were granted on 7th Feb. 1995 in C.A. No. 349 of 1995. The appellant --original defendant filed L.P.A. No. 15 of 1995 against the Order dated 7th Feb. 1995 granting interim relief in C.A. No. 349 of 1995. The appeal Court refuse t6 entertain the appeal, but granted liberty to the appellant to move the learned single Judge for clarification as to whether the Order dated 7th Feb. 1995 in the civil application was an interim or an ad interim order.
8. Accordingly, C.A. No. 349 of 1995 was heard by the learned single Judge on 23rd March, 1995 and after hearing Counsel for the parties, the learned single Judge clarified that the Order dated 7th Feb. 1995 was an interim order and that the civil application stood disposed of in terms of the reliefs being granted as per prayers (a) and (b) of the C.A. Thus, the civil application stood disposed of on the 23rd March, 1995 and relief has been granted in favour of the respondents in their pending appeal from Order No. 93 of 1995.
9. The respondents then contended that despite the injunction granted against the present appellant in C.A. No. 349 fo 1995, he had committed flagrant violation of the Order dated 7th Feb. 1995 which was confirmed on 23rd March, 1995. Hence, contempt petition No. 113 of 1995 was moved by the respondents against the appellant which has been admitted in this Court on 30th March, 1995. A fresh injunction has been granted against the appellant in the said contempt petition.
10. On 27th April, 1995, the present appellant -- original defendant Robert Salvi filed the present L.P.A. No. 35 of 1995 againstthe order dated 23rd March, 1995 in C.A. No. 349 of 1995 in pending A.O. No. 93 of 1995. Thus, this letters patent appeal is only against the