CWP No.18105 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.14302 of 2011 (O&M)& CWP No.18105 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.10.2011 Poshak Agrivet Private Limited, 71/3 Mile Stone, G.T. Road, Karnal through its Managing Director Dr. Shivaji S. Zombade and another. ... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana through the Home Secretary to Government of Haryana, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. Abhinash Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana for petitioners No.1 to 3. Mr. Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate for petitioner No.2. None for the respondents No.4 and 5. Mr. Suvneet Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.6&7. Mr. V.K. Sachdeva, Advocate for respondent No.8. Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.9. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.10. Mr. Alok Jagga, Advocate for the applicant in CM No.13326-27 of 2011. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) CM No.14302 of 2011 1. CM is allowed. Annexures A-1 to A-3 are taken on CWP No.18105 of 2010 (O&M) [2] record. CWP No.18105 of 2011 2. The petition has been filed by the Company M/s Poshak Agrivet Private Limited and associated with the 2nd petitioner, claiming to be the Managing Director of the 1st petitioner Company. The petitioners have sought for a mandamus directing the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 to unlock the factory premises, restore and hand over the possession of the property to the petitioners, which was illegally dispossessed by respondents No.5 to 8. Respondent No.6 is the landlord of the premises in which the factory owned by the Company is situated. Admittedly, the rent deed has been executed by 6th respondent in favour of the Company represented through the 2nd petitioner. It is also noticed that the period of lease has expired but admittedly the Company was allowed to continue in possession, through an arbitral award that allowed the Company to retain possession till 31.03.2012. 2. The 8th respondent is stated to be another Director of the Company. In a stand-off between 2nd petitioner and 8th respondent, the 8th respondent appears to have complained to the Company's banker not to allow the 2nd petitioner to operate the accounts, whereupon the Bank sought through a letter dated 18.09.2010 to produce the resolution of the Board to enable it to take appropriate action. When the differences between the 2nd petitioner and the 8th respondent, who were the Directors of the Company came to head, the 8th respondent appears to have given a complaint on 26.09.2010 to the police apprehending danger to his life and seeking for protection. The 8th respondent had felt jettisoned from the Company affairs in a purported move of the 2nd petitioner and his wife issuing a letter to the Bank claiming that the 8th respondent had been CWP No.18105 of 2010 (O&M) [3] suspended from the directorship. This was when the police appears to have acted on the instructions of the 8th respondent and came into the premises of the factory to restore law and order. What would appear to be, therefore, a clear attempt of the police to quell dissidence amongst the Directors of the Company to mar peace at the premises, went out of bounds for both the 2nd petitioner and the 8th respondent. The writ petition has been filed on 5th October, 2010 claiming that the factory premises has been closed at the behest of respondents No.6 and 7 and the petitioners would allege that the 6th respondent used his wife's influence as a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) to obtain the police help and wrest possession from the petitioners. There are also photographs which show that the workmen with their belongs, boxes and beddings as seated around the buildings outside, having been ejected from their residences within the factory compound. 3. There have been periodically several interim orders to manage the live stocks available at the factory, for, there seemed no immediate end to the disputes between the parties. There was also an application filed for appointment of a Receiver by the petitioners in which they referred to the fact that to defuse tension between the 2nd petitioner and the family members, and the 6th respondent, the stocks and other equipments lying at the premises would be taken away in 120 days from 28.10.2010 and that the parties will not have any complaints one against the other and all suits or complaints would be withdrawn. Minutes had been drawn up on the same day i.e. 28.10.2010 rewriting the fact that the 6th respondent is in possession of the premisses. 4. The disputes between the 2nd petitioner and the 8th respondent have evidently allowed the respondents No.6 and 7 to take advantage and secure possession of the property. On a CWP No.18105 of 2010 (O&M) [4] pointed query to the counsel appearing for the 6th respondent as to how the 6th respondent was entitled to be in possession, even when the arbitral award allowed for continuous possession of the Company till 31st March, 2012, the counsel appearing for the 6th respondent would only say that the property had been delivered by the petitioner voluntarily after filing the writ petition, I cannot see such an act of voluntary delivery to the 6th respondent or the 7th respondent as natural. The minutes drawn on 28.10.2010 cannot be used for any purpose other than the fact of an acknowledgment that the property was in the possession of the 6th respondent. I cannot take this to be a voluntary surrender in the light of how the events had taken place between 18.09.2010, that is, when Bank was informed by the 8th respondent to stop the 2nd petitioner for operating the bank accounts, to the date of filing of the writ petition on 01.10.2010. The photographs brought to file along with the petition show a large posse of police personnel at the premises. It is not denied that the photographs are not true and they did not depict true state of affairs. The photographs reveal the presence of police patrol jeep. They also reveal several police personnel in uniforms sitting at the gate of the factory premises. Some photographs taken in dark conditions also show the presence of the police beyond day time. While the presence of police to quell breach loss of peace is perfectly understandable, the police cannot join issues with inter se disputes that have to be settled at the Board meeting of the Company Directors. It is easy to piece together several seemingly disjointed events to infer that large presence of police at the factory premises could not have been possible, unless there were weighty reasons of highly connected people, to prod the police to stay alert even during the wee hours at the factory premises and prevent the 2nd petitioner, workmen and their families to return to factory CWP No.18105 of 2010 (O&M) [5] premises. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the 8th respondent would say that the property is neither in the possession of the 2nd petitioner nor in the possession of the respondents No.6 and 7. The property, according to him, is in the possession of the Company. I affirm his statement only to this extent. The learned counsel's further contention that the 8th respondent must be termed to be in possession of the property, is in my view, not possible for me to hold in these proceedings. I am convinced that the whole action has been brought to this Court only by the Company operations coming to nadir and the factory being closed, in the presence of the police, on account of the fight between the 2nd petitioner and the 8th respondent. The 8th respondent did not come to Court to seek for removal of the police presence or for the removal of the locks. On the other hand, it is admitted by him that it is the 8th respondent, who brought the police to the premises in an alleged attempt to protect himself. It is a smart act on the part of the respondents 6 and 7 to move into the factory in such a situation and make a pretense of innocent statement that the petitioners themselves surrendered the property, when the prayer in the writ petition itself was for its recovery. In the dispute amongst the Directors, the respondents No.6 and 7 shall have no part to play. The respondents 6 and 7 are directed to be vacated immediately within 24 hours from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If their presence is still noticed or if they employ any person to prevent the Directors of the Company from coming into the premises, anyone of the affected parties shall be at liberty to approach this Court again for appropriate directions. They shall also be at liberty to approach the police for appropriate protection for their re-entry into the premises. I give no CWP No.18105 of 2010 (O&M) [6] direction for settling the disputes between the 2nd petitioner and the 8th respondent. They shall settle their own scores in the manner that the law would allow for in independent proceedings. I am informed that the 8th respondent has approached the Company Law Board complaining of oppression and mismanagement by the 2nd petitioner. 6. This intervention through writ petition becomes necessary only insofar as it concerns the improper State action of allowing for the property to go out of the hands of the Company to the hands of respondents No.6 and 7. In my view, it could not have been possible without the active connivance of the police when the respondents 6 and 7 were allowed to fish in troubled waters, with directors of the Company fighting with each other on administrative affairs of the Company. All the interim orders that had been passed shall not any longer survive for enforcement through this Court. 7. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. OCTOBER 18, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE