FARAD CONTINUTION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION A.O.No.l43 of 2006 with C.A.No.l87 of 2006 -------------------------------------------------- Office Notes,Office Court or Judge’s Order Memorandum of Coram appearence,Court’s Orders & Directors and Registrar’s Order --------------------------------------------------- Mr A.M.Saraogi for appellants Mr R.S Champawat for respondent CORAM; A.M.KHANWILKAR J. CORAM; A.M.KHANWILKAR J. CORAM; A.M.KHANWILKAR J. DATED 27.2.2006 DATED 27.2.2006 DATED 27.2.2006 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard counsel for the parties. For the findings reached by the court below that the defendant continued to be the director of the company, which I am inclined to uphold, no interference is warranted in this appeal. Counsel for the appellant, however, has placed reliance on Form 32 purportedly issued by the office of the Department of Company Affairs in November 200l, which indicates that the respondent has resigned. Reliance was also placed on another certified copy of Form 32 issued sometime in May 2004 to suggest that the name of the respondent does not appear in the names of the directors of the company. Counsel for the respondent has brought to my notice that these documents were never produced before the trial court and are being pressed into service for the first time before this court. Besides, the correctness of the contents of the Form 32 will have to be established at the trial. For the time being suffice it to rely upon the documents titled Memorandum of Understanding date 9.9.200l which is between Parasnath Ramdular Singh and Suresh Ramdular Singh (respondent herein). Under the said arrangement the respondent is described as party of 2nd part was incharge of the affairs of the company and was authorised to change directors of the company as per his desire. Specific case of the respondent before the trial court on affidavit was that he never resigned nor has been removed or expelled as director of the appellant company. That case has not been rebutted even for prima facie purpose before the trial court. Understood thus,no interference is warranted with the impugned order. Hence this appeal as well as the civil application are dismissed. . At this stage the counsel for the appellants submits that atleast hearing of the suit be expedited. Counsel for the respondent fairly states that he will waive notice of summons which will curtail the time for placing the suit for hearing. As defendant has waived service of summons through his counsel,the trial court will be well advised to expedite the hearing of the suit preferably to be disposed of by the end of December 2006. Needless to state that all questions are left open to be decided on its own merit in accordance with law.