Calcutta High Court
Navin Chandra Ojha vs Calcutta Safe Deposit Co. Ltd. & Ors on 24 November, 2014
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen
ORDER SHEET
GA No.3522 of 2014
With
CS No.159 of 2010
GA No.284 of 2014
GA No.3139 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
NAVIN CHANDRA OJHA
Versus
CALCUTTA SAFE DEPOSIT CO. LTD. & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN
Date : 24th November, 2014.
Appearance:
Mr. Mainak Bose, Adv.
Ms. D. Adhikari, Adv.
Ms. S. Parveen, Adv.
...for the petitioner
Mr. Debajyoti Datta, Adv.
...for the plaintiff
Mr. Joy Saha, Adv.
...for the respondent no.2.
Ms. Trina Banerjee, Adv.
...for the respondent no.5 Mr. A. Naskar, Adv.
The Court : This is an application by the defendant no.3. The defendant no.3 is part of the Interim Board of the Management constituted in terms of the order dated 10th April, 1992. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is not allowed to participate in the management of the company inasmuch as remuneration are being drawn by the other committee members 2 whereas no such remuneration was ever offered to the petitioner. It is further contended that the valuable properties are being let out at a ridiculously low rate in a prime location at Dalhousie Square without any transparency and the petitioner apprehends that there was under hand dealings in such transaction.
Mr. Joy Saha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant no.2, submits that this application is frivolous inasmuch as the petitioner was not in India for a long period of time which would be evident from paragraph 3 of the petition. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not shown any interest in the management of the company inasmuch as there is no under hand dealings and the main source of income of the company is rental incomes earned from various properties. However, no satisfactory reply could be given by Mr. Saha as to whether any vacant spaces are available in the first floor of the building in question. Mr. Saha's argument has been adopted by Ms. Trina Banerjee and Mr. Debajyoti Datta, learned advocates representing the respondent no.2 and plaintiff.
In my view, the property of the company is required to be preserved till the suit is being finally heard. An order in terms of the prayer (c), in my view, cannot cause any detriment to either of the parties. If any space is sold out or let out, it has to be at the best available market price to which no party could raise any objection. If therebe any objection then it certainly raises a doubt as to the nature of such objection. The 3 grievance of the plaintiff that the properties have been let out and sought to be sold under-value appears to have some substance and, as on date, convincing having regard to the nature of the objection raised by the other contesting parties.
In view thereof, Mr.Kaushik Chowdhury, a member of the Bar Library Club, is appointed as a Special Officer to cause an inspection of the building in question and to ascertain if any vacant space is available on any of the floors or on the first floor of the building and shall file a report on the returnable date.
The Special Officer shall be entitled to an initial remuneration of 800 GMs to be paid by the petitioner.
Mr. Saha, learned counsel submits that, as on date, there is no vacant space. The parties in occupation of the respective spaces shall disclose the agreement or document on the basis of which they were permitted to occupy such spaces in the building to the Special Officer during his visit. Mr. Saha, further submits that the respondent is relitigating on the same issue. However, it prima facie, does not appear to be so having regard to the documents disclosed in the proceeding. This issue has to be decided on affidavits.
The matter is made returnable on 1st December, 2014.
(SOUMEN SEN, J.) B.Pal