Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

12. The impugned judgment passed by the Ld. ARC has been assailed in the present appeal inter alia on the grounds: that the Ld. Trial Court erred in law in overlooking the testimony of PW-2 Sh. V.C. Mishra, Handwriting Expert examined by the petitioner/landlady, who in his affidavit tendered in evidence dated 22nd January, 2003 Ex.P-2/1 proved his opinion vide report Ex.PW-2/1 that on his examination of signatures on the affidavit dated 11.08.1993 of erstwhile owner Sh. Chuni Lal Bakshi Ex.RW-2/3, he opined that it bore signatures of late Sh. Chuni Lal Bakshi commensurating with the sample handwriting and signatures on the letters relied upon by the petitioner/landlady dated 01.01.1993, 09.08.1993, 16.08.1993 and 03.12.1993 Ex. PW 2/2 to Ex.PW2/5 respectively that had been written by Sh. Chuni Lal Bakshi to the petitioner's husband. and thus, it has been proved on the record that "written consent" was given for subletting or parting with the possession in favour of Jagdev Singh, Director of respondent No.1 company vide letter dated 14.08.1987 Ex.RW2/1; and that the ld. Trial Court erred in law while recording in the impugned judgment that RW-1 Harjeet Kaur in her evidence identified the signatures of Mr. Sadana on letter Ex.RW-1/1, which fact was never stated by the witness nor the document bore signatures of Mr. Sadana; and that the ld. Trial Court committed an error in not applying the principle of pith and substance while interpreting the letter dated 14.08.1987 Ex.RW-2/1 granting permission to part with possession of the premises in favour of Jagdev Singh even in the alternative in his individual capacity, which letter was without any condition or unqualified; and that the ld. Trial Court wrongly assumed that deceased Chuni Lal Bakshi would not have granted permission to a person who was not a Director of the tenant company, which assumption was contrary to the tone and tenor of affidavit of the erstwhile owner dated 11.08.1993 Ex.RW-2/3; and the ld. Trial Court passed the order of eviction despite the fact that it had not disbelieved either the letter dated 14.08.1987 Ex.RW-2/1 nor the affirmation of such permission granted to respondent No.1/tenant company in terms of affidavit dated 11.08.1993 Ex.RW-2/3; and that the ld. Trial Court erred in ignoring the documents viz. share certificates Ex.RW-3/1 to RW-3/6 and certified copy of Form No.32 issued by the Registrar of Companies Ex.RW-1/7 that conclusively showed that Sh. Jagdev Singh had been appointed as Executive Director of respondent/tenant company w.e.f. 19.05.1987; and that the ld. Trial Court fell in error in holding that Jagdev Singh had not subscribed nor holding any qualification in terms of Clause 12 of the Articles of Association, which clause did not apply to Jagdev Singh; and that the ld. Trial Court failed to ignore that the appearance of late Jagdev Singh as Director of the the respondent No.1 company had been recorded in the AGM meeting on 30.12.1987.

15. Per contra Sh. Ravi Bassi, the ld. Counsel for the respondent/petitioner / landlady urged that the joint written had not been signed on behalf of the company but only by respondent No.2 Jagdev Singh that showed collusion between the Company and deceased Sh. Jagdev Singh. While challenging the genuineness of the letter dated 14.08.1987 Ex.RW-2/1, it was urged that even otherwise the appellant has miserably failed to prove that Sh. Jagdev Singh was one of its Directors as on the date when the possession was parted in his favour. It was vehemently urged that despite service of notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC, the tenant company as also the respondent No.2 Jagdev Singh failed to produce the minutes of the Board of Directors whereby Jagdev Singh was introduced or appointed as its Executive Director; and it was pointed out that even in the Annual Returns of the Company for December-1987, the name of Jagdev Singh was not mentioned or indicated as one of its Directors.

WAS DECEASED JAGDEV SINGH REALLY A DIRECTOR ?

35. The moot question now is: whether deceased Jagdev Singh had become a director, or as pleaded by the appellant and the Tenant Company, an Executive Director, when the possession of the tenancy was parted with in his favour. Well, to cut the long chase short, the answer is an emphatic "NO". The appellant deceased Jagdev Singh and the tenant Company fail miserably fail to substantiate that Jagdev Singh had been duly appointed as its director w.e.f 19 th May, 1987, prior to obtaining the written permission on 14th August, 1987. First thing first, the joint written statement filed by the two directors was not supported by any resolution of the Board of Directors thereby authorising Shri S.D.L.Sadana, its Director or for that matter deceased Jagdev Singh to defend the eviction petition, sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the company. Well, even if such aspect is brushed under the carpet, the second most glaring omission is the failure of the Company as also deceased Jagdev Singh and/or his LRS during the course of trial to comply with notice u/ Order XII Rule 8 C.P.C dated 9 th September, 1995 and thereby deliberately not placing on the judicial record any decision or minutes of the Board of Directors appointing Jagdev Singh as the Executive Director w.e.f 19.05.1987. The version of RW-2 S.D.L.Sadana that some of the documents were misplaced by their Chartered accountant is self serving and sham defense that does not cut any ice.

38. I am afraid the tenant company or for that matter the appellant deceased Jagdev Singh survived by his legal heirs miserably fail to show that as on 19.05.1987, deceased Jagdev Singh was either holding or for that matter within two months of his appointment as a Director or Executive Director as the case may be, he acquired shares in his own name in the capital of the tenant company of the nominal value of Rs. 5,000/-. It is pertinent to mention that the share certificates evidencing allotment of shares in favour of deceased Jagdev Singh, which are Ex. RW3/1 to RW3/7 would reveal that the same were issued on 08.09.1988. It would bear repetition that despite service of notice dated 09.09.1995 under Order XII rule 8 CPC, the appellant and for that matter the tenant company failed to produce the "Members Share Holding Register" ending with the year December, 1987 nor the Director's Register was produced, and it stares on the face of the record that no resolution of the Board of Directors or for that matter the ratification of any decision taken by the Board of Directors inducting Jagdev Singh as Director or Executive Director w.e.f. 19.05.1987 in the tenant company has been placed or proved on the record. RW5 V. K. Jain, Chartered Accountant and Company Secretary of the tenant company on being prodded on this aspect in his cross-examination was unable to say as to when deceased Jagdev Singh acquired shares in the company either. Further, as pointed out by Mr. Ravi Bassi, ld. Counsel for the petitioner/landlady/respondent no.1 in the present appeal, the name of deceased Jagdev Singh does not find any mention in the Director's report dated 31.12.1987 Ex. RW1/5, which bears signatures of Mr.S.D.L. Sadana and Mr. Nand Kishore Sadana. In this regard, the testimony of RW5 V. K. Jain, Chartered Accountant and Company Secretary of tenant company assumes significance that no meetings of the Board of Directors had taken place from 30.12.1986 to 30.12.1987.