Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

22. At the outset, we may place on record that in the meantime in the O.As. filed in C.S. 481 of 2006, Ramasubramanian, J., passed an order on 23rd June, 2008, wherein it has been noticed:-

"8. Today, when the applications were taken up for hearing, Mr. V. Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, fairly submitted that without his knowledge and without the knowledge of the learned Senior Counsel leading him in the matter, the plaintiffs moved a Contempt Petition in Contempt Petition No. 508 of 2006. In the said Contempt Petition, it appears that notice was ordered to the Managing Directors on 20.6.2008. Pending Contempt Petition, an interim order of injunction has also been passed in Sub Application No.163 of 2008, on 20.6.2008, restraining the Managing Director from implementing the resolution or item of business relation to the Election of the Directors of the Bank at the 83rd, 84th and 85th Annual General Meetings, held on 5.6.2008. Mr. V. Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs himself produced a copy of the interim order passed in the Sub Application in the Contempt Petition and submitted that this has happened behind his back and he felt embarrassed and very sorry about it. Therefore the learned counsel wanted to withdraw his appearance, since he did not wish to appear for such a party any more."

24. Taking notice of the earlier order of the court dated 26th July, 2006 in terms whereof the erstwhile Directors were directed to continue in the office and to maintain status quo until further orders of the court and furthermore taking notice of the fact that in the meantime Annual General Meetings had already been held wherein resolution had been passed electing the Directors and that the appellants having failed to obtain any interim order either in the present suit or in the previous suit C.S. No.981 of 2004 and after having allowed the meetings to go on, the first plaintiff has adopted a dubious method of moving a Contempt Petition and getting an interim order of injunction on 20.6.2008 contrary to the statement made across the Bar on 16.6.2008 amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court, observed:-

14. The plaintiffs are guilty of abuse of the process of law and guilty of Forum Shopping. After having failed to obtain an interim order of the very same nature from this Court and after trying their luck before the Division Bench and the Supreme Court, they had gone before the other Court and obtained an interim order in a Contempt Petition. In the Contempt Petition, the first plaintiff herein does not appear to have mentioned anything about the new suit C.S. No. 481 of 2008 and the orders passed in the injunction applications. Thus the first plaintiff is also guilty of suppression of material facts. Under such circumstances, I have no alternative, except to dismiss all these applications for injunction. Hence O.A. Nos. 534, 536 and 621 are dismissed.."