Monoranjan Roy Vs. Hdfc Bank Ltd. and anr. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1087023
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided OnSep-26-2013
JudgeNADIRA PATHERYA
AppellantMonoranjan Roy
RespondentHdfc Bank Ltd. and anr.
Excerpt:
order sheet ga no.3002 of 2013 cs no.351 of 2013 in the high court at calcutta ordinary original civil jurisdiction original side monoranjan roy versus hdfc bank ltd.& anr. before: the hon'ble justice patherya date : 26th september, 2013. mr.mr.mr.mr.soumendra nath mukherjee, sr.adv anirban roy, adv.soumabho ghose, adv.sanjay basu, adv.…for the plaintiff the court : in a suit for a declaration that plaintiff is not associated with the business of the defendant no.2 since 13th october, 2010 this application has been filed for interim reliefs. the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner continued as a director of the defendant no.2 till 13th october, 2010 when he submitted his resignation as a director of the said respondent no.2. form 32 was also filed by the defendant no.2 with the registrar of companies. therefore, the petitioner on and from 13th october, 2010 ceased to be a director of the defendant no.2. in may, 2013 notice under section 13(2) of the 2002 act has been issued by the respondent no.1 against the respondent no.2 and in such notice the petitioner has been described as a director of the respondent no.2. this representation in the said notice by the respondent no.1 is not only erroneous but contrary to form 32 filed by the respondent no.2. hence this application has been filed for interim reliefs. no notice of this application has been given to the respondents as the petitioner apprehends that steps prejudicial to its interest may be taken. having considered the facts of the case admittedly on 13th october, 2010 the petitioner resigned from the respondent no.2 as its director and therefore ceased to be a director of the respondent no.2. this will evident not only from the resignation letter but also from form 32 filed by respondent no.2. therefore describing the petitioner as a director of respondent no.2 by the respondent no.1 in its notice dated 23rd april, 2013 so also in a subsequent notice is contrary to the form filed. in the said notice no claim has been from the petitioner as a guarantor. from a reading of the notice it appears that it is for default in repayment of principal debt and interest that such notice has been issued. this therefore entitles the petitioner to an order in terms of prayer (e) of the notice of motion till 7th october, 2013. matter to appear in the list on 3rd october, 2013. all parties to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings. (patherya, j.) tr/
Judgment:

ORDER

SHEET GA No.3002 of 2013 CS No.351 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MONORANJAN ROY Versus HDFC BANK LTD.& ANR.

BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA Date : 26th September, 2013.

Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Soumendra Nath Mukherjee, Sr.Adv Anirban Roy, Adv.Soumabho Ghose, Adv.Sanjay Basu, Adv.…for the plaintiff The Court : In a suit for a declaration that plaintiff is not associated with the business of the defendant No.2 since 13th October, 2010 this application has been filed for interim reliefs.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner continued as a director of the defendant No.2 till 13th October, 2010 when he submitted his resignation as a director of the said respondent No.2.

Form 32 was also filed by the defendant No.2 with the Registrar of Companies.

Therefore, the petitioner on and from 13th October, 2010 ceased to be a director of the defendant No.2.

In May, 2013 notice under Section 13(2) of the 2002 Act has been issued by the respondent No.1 against the respondent No.2 and in such notice the petitioner has been described as a director of the respondent No.2.

This representation in the said notice by the respondent No.1 is not only erroneous but contrary to Form 32 filed by the respondent No.2.

Hence this application has been filed for interim reliefs.

No notice of this application has been given to the respondents as the petitioner apprehends that steps prejudicial to its interest may be taken.

Having considered the facts of the case admittedly on 13th October, 2010 the petitioner resigned from the respondent No.2 as its director and therefore ceased to be a director of the respondent No.2.

This will evident not only from the resignation letter but also from Form 32 filed by respondent No.2.

Therefore describing the petitioner as a director of respondent No.2 by the respondent No.1 in its notice dated 23rd April, 2013 so also in a subsequent notice is contrary to the form filed.

In the said notice no claim has been from the petitioner as a guarantor.

From a reading of the notice it appears that it is for default in repayment of principal debt and interest that such notice has been issued.

This therefore entitles the petitioner to an order in terms of prayer (e) of the Notice of Motion till 7th October, 2013.

Matter to appear in the list on 3rd October, 2013.

All parties to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.

(PATHERYA, J.) TR/