- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION (A) (1) (i) (A) (1) (i) (A) (1) (i) APPEAL NO.359 OF 2004 APPEAL NO.359 OF 2004 APPEAL NO.359 OF 2004 IN IN IN COMPANY APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2004 COMPANY APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2004 COMPANY APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2004 IN IN IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 41 OF 2002 COMPANY PETITION NO. 41 OF 2002 COMPANY PETITION NO. 41 OF 2002 WITH WITH WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1706 OF 2004 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1706 OF 2004 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1706 OF 2004 THEREIN TAKEN OUT BY THE APPELLANTS THEREIN TAKEN OUT BY THE APPELLANTS THEREIN TAKEN OUT BY THE APPELLANTS 1. Vaishnav Shorilal Puri 2. Vishal Vaishnav Puri Both residing at Vaishno Kunj, 122-Gulmohar Cross Road No.10, JVPD Scheme, Mumbai - 400 049. .. Appellants Versus 1. Kishor Kundan Sippy residing at D-143, Petit Hall, 66, Napean Sea Road, Mumbai - 400 006. 2. Kundan H. Sippy residing at 102, Miami, 70/A, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai 400 026. 3. Samrat Shipping & Transport P. Ltd. a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 16, Jolly Maker Chamber No.2, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. 4. Seaworld Shipping & Logistics Pvt.Ltd. a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at FO-14, Sapna Terrace, Swatantra Path, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa and now having shifted its registered office at NCL Bldg., 8th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Formerly known as "Samrat Shipping Logistics Privated Limited". .. Respondents Mr.Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate with Mr.J.P.Sen i/by M/s.Federal & Rashmikant & Co. for Appellants. Dr.Veerendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Rahul Chitnis and Ms.Leena Desai i/by M/s.Wadia Ghandy for - 2 - res.Nos.1 & 2. Mr.M.S.Doctor i/by Kerban Anklesaria for res.No.4. ----- WITH WITH WITH (ii) APPEAL NO. 468 OF 2004 (ii) APPEAL NO. 468 OF 2004 (ii) APPEAL NO. 468 OF 2004 IN IN IN COMPANY APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2004 COMPANY APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2004 COMPANY APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2004 IN IN IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 41 OF 2002 COMPANY PETITION NO. 41 OF 2002 COMPANY PETITION NO. 41 OF 2002 Seaworld Shipping & Logistics Pvt.Ltd. a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at FO-14, Sapna Terrace, Swatantra Path, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa and now having shifted its registered office at NCL Bldg., 8th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Formerly known as "Samrat Shipping Logistics Privated Limited". .. Appellants Versus 1. Kishor Kundan Sippy residing at D-143, Petit Hall, 66, Napean Sea Road, Mumbai - 400 006. 2. Kundan H. Sippy residing at 102, Miami, 70/A, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai 400 026. 3. Samrat Shipping & Transport P. Ltd. a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 16, Jolly Maker Chamber No.2, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. 4. Vaishnav Shorilal Puri 5. Vishal Vaishnav Puri Both residing at Vaishno Kunj, 122-Gulmohar Cross Road No.10, JVPD Scheme, Mumbai - 400 049. .. Respondents Mr.M.S.Doctor i/by Kerban Ankalsaria for appellants. Dr.Veerendra Tulzapaurkar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Rahul Chitnis and Ms.Leena Desai i/by M/s.Wadia Ghandy for - 3 - res.Nos.1 & 2. Mr.J.P.Sen with Mr.Farhan Dubash i/by M/s.Federal & Rashmikant for res.Nos.4 & 5. ------ WITH WITH WITH (2) (i) APPEAL NOS. 396 OF 2004 (2) (i) APPEAL NOS. 396 OF 2004 (2) (i) APPEAL NOS. 396 OF 2004 IN IN IN COMPANY APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2004 COMPANY APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2004 COMPANY APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2004 IN IN IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 41 OF 2002 COMPANY PETITION NO. 41 OF 2002 COMPANY PETITION NO. 41 OF 2002 1. Vaishnav Shorilal Puri 2. Vishal Vaishnav Puri Both residing at Vaishno Kunj, 122-Gulmohar Cross Road No.10, JVPD Scheme, Mumbai - 400 049. .. Appellants Versus 1. Kishor Kundan Sippy residing at D-143, Petit Hall, 66, Napean Sea Road, Mumbai - 400 006. 2. Kundan H. Sippy residing at 102, Miami, 70/A, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai 400 026. 3. Samrat Shipping & Transport Systems P. Ltd. a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 16, Jolly Maker Chamber No.2, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. 4. Seaworld Shipping & Logistics Pvt.Ltd. a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at FO-14, Sapna Terrace, Swatantra Path, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa and now having shifted its registered office at NCL Bldg., 8th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Formerly known as "Samrat Shipping Logistics Privated Limited". .. Respondents Mr.J.P.Sen with Mr.Farhan Dubash i/by M/s.Federal & Rashimkant for appellants. - 4 - Dr.Veerendra Tulzapurkar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Rahul Chitnis and Ms.Leena Desai i/by M/s.Wadia Ghandy for res.Nos.1 & 2. Mr.M.S.Doctor i/by Keerban Anklesaria for res.No.4. ----- AND AND AND (ii) APPEAL NO. 469 OF 2004 (ii) APPEAL NO. 469 OF 2004 (ii) APPEAL NO. 469 OF 2004 IN IN IN COMPANY APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2004 COMPANY APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2004 COMPANY APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2004 IN IN IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 41 OF 2002 COMPANY PETITION NO. 41 OF 2002 COMPANY PETITION NO. 41 OF 2002 Seaworld Shipping & Logistics Pvt.Ltd. a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at FO-14, Sapna Terrace, Swatantra Path, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa and now having shifted its registered office at NCL Bldg., 8th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Formerly known as "Samrat Shipping Logistics Privated Limited". .. Appellants Versus 1. Kishor Kundan Sippy residing at D-143, Petit Hall, 66, Napean Sea Road, Mumbai - 400 006. 2. Kundan H. Sippy residing at 102, Miami, 70/A, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai 400 026. 3. Samrat Shipping & Transport Systems P. Ltd. a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 16, Jolly Maker Chamber No.2, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. 4. Vaishnav Shorilal Puri 5. Vishal Vaishnav Puri Both residing at Vaishno Kunj, 122-Gulmohar Cross Road No.10, - 5 - JVPD Scheme, Mumbai - 400 049. .. Respondents Mr.M.S.Doctor i/by Kerban Anklesari for appellants. Dr.Veerendra Tulzapurkar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Rahul Chitnis i/by M/s.Wadia Ghandy & Co. for res.Nos.1 & 2. Mr.J.P.Sen with Mr.Farhan Dubash i/by M/s.Federal & Rashmikant for res.Nos.4 & 5. ----- WITH WITH WITH (B) (B) (B) APPEAL NO. 358 OF 2004 APPEAL NO. 358 OF 2004 APPEAL NO. 358 OF 2004 IN IN IN COMPANY APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2004 COMPANY APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2004 COMPANY APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2004 IN IN IN COMPANY PETITION NO. 40 OF 2002 COMPANY PETITION NO. 40 OF 2002 COMPANY PETITION NO. 40 OF 2002 WITH WITH WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1705 OF 2006 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1705 OF 2006 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1705 OF 2006 AND AND AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.892 OF 2005 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.892 OF 2005 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.892 OF 2005 TAKEN OUT THEREIN BY THE APPELLANTS TAKEN OUT THEREIN BY THE APPELLANTS TAKEN OUT THEREIN BY THE APPELLANTS 1. Vaishnav Shorilal Puri 2. Vishal Vaishnav Puri 3. Poonam V. Puri All three residing at Vaishno Kunj, 122-Gulmohar Cross Road No.10, JVPD Scheme, Mumbai - 400 049. .. Appellants Versus 1. Kishor Kundan Sippy residing at D-143, Petit Hall, 66, Napean Sea Road, Mumbai - 400 006. 2. Kundan H. Sippy residing at 102, Miami, 70/A, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai 400 026. 3. Samrat Tankages Pvt. Ltd. a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 64, Jolly Maker Chamber No.2, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. 4. Samrat Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. a Company incorporated under the - 6 - provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 63, Jolly Maker Chamber No.II, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. 5. Samrat Container Terminals Pvt. Ltd. a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 64, Jolly Maker Chamber No.2, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. 6. Delta Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 63, Jolly Maker Chamber No.2, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. 7. Samrat Shipping & Transport Systems Pvt. Ltd. a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 16, Jolly Maker Chamber No.II, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. .. Respondents Mr.Iqbal Chagla, Senior Advocate with Mr.F Divitre and Mr.Farhan Dubash i/by M/s.Federal & Rashmikant for appellants. Dr.Veerendra Tulzapurkar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Rahul Chitnis and Ms.Leena Desai i/by M/s.Wadia Ghandy for res.Nos.1 & 2. ----- WITH WITH WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.391 OF 2005 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.391 OF 2005 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.391 OF 2005 IN IN IN APPEAL NO.358 OF 2004 APPEAL NO.358 OF 2004 APPEAL NO.358 OF 2004 1. Vaishnav Shorilal Puri & ors. ... Appellants V/s. 1. Kishore Kundalal Sippy & ors. ... Respondents A n d Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt.Ltd., 92, Industrial Suburb II Stage, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore 560 022. ... Applicant Mr.Iqbal Chagla, Sr.Advocate with Mr.F. Divitre and Mr.Farhan Dubash i/by M/s.Federal & Rashmikant for - 7 - appellants. Dr.Veerendra Tulzapurkar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Rahul Chitnis and Ms.Leena Desai i/by M/s.Wadia Ghandy for res.Nos.1 & 2. Mr.Arif Bookwala, Senior Advocate i/by Antany Alex for applicant. ---- CORAM: H.L. GOKHALE & CORAM: H.L. GOKHALE & CORAM: H.L. GOKHALE & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 12/12/2005 DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 12/12/2005 DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 12/12/2005 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 31st March 2006 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 31st March 2006 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 31st March 2006 JUDGMENT: (Per H.L. Gokhale, J.) JUDGMENT: (Per H.L. Gokhale, J.) JUDGMENT: (Per H.L. Gokhale, J.) 1. All these appeals under the Letters Patent raise by and large common questions of law and facts and are therefore heard and are being decided together. These appeals arise principally as a result of a dispute between two groups of business magnets, i.e. Puri Group and Sippy Group, to claim the general agency business with an International shipping company by name Contship Containers Lines Ltd. (for short "Contship") which is engaged in operating vessels for transport of cargo. These Sippy Group and Puri Group are having equal shares and equal number of directors in two Indian Shipping Companies by name Samrat Shipping Company Ltd. (for short "SSCO") and Samrat Shipping & Transport Systems Ltd. (for short "SSTS"). Both these companies are private companies. The appeals arise out of the allegations of oppression and mismanagement by the Sippy Group against the Puri Group and the proceedings under the Companies Act on account of the diversion of the Contship agency from SSTS to a company floated by the Puri Group. - 8 - 2. This SSTS was having principally two types of businesses; one was agency business and the other was charter business. The agency business included the business with and for Contship. The agency business was all throughout being looked after by Puris whereas the charter business was being looked after by Sippys. The major profit of the company was through the agency business. It is the grievance of the Sippy Group that Puri Group diverted the agency business with Contship to another company floated by them and named as Samrat Shipping & Logistics Ltd. (for short "Samrat Logistics") whose name was later on changed to Seaworld Shipping & Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (for short "Seaworld"). It was alleged by the Sippy Group that this diverting of business by Puris was in breach of their fiduciary obligation as directors and amounted to its oppression in SSTS as well as in SSCO within the meaning of section 397 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short "the Act"). This grievance was the main cause leading to filing of two company petitions under sections 397, 398 and 399 read with 402, 403 and 406 of the Act by Sippy Group to the Company Law Board (CLB) and seeking a direction to make good the advantage gained as provided under section 88 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. The defence of Puri Group was that there were other prior disputes on financial aspects between Puris and Sippys and there was no confidence subsisting between the parties. Besides, the agency agreement with SSTS had been terminated by - 9 - Contship itself as per the terms of the agreement by a three months’ notice dated 1.9.2001 and had come to an end on 30.11.2001. Therefore, no corporate opportunity was any longer available to SSTS to claim this business with Contship. Contship had changed their agents in India in the past also. Therefore, according to Puris, the grievance about the alleged diversion of business with Contship to Seaworld cannot amount to breach of any fiduciary duty and/or oppression or mis-management nor any direction to make good the advantage be passed. These company petitions were substantially allowed by the CLB leading to four appeals by Puri Group to a Single Judge of this Court under section 10-F of the Act. The appeals have been substantially disallowed by a common judgment and order dated 23rd February 2004 and this common decision on those appeals has led to the present group of appeals under Letters Patent. The appellants have taken out Notices of Motion for stay. Apart from Motions for stay and other interlocutory reliefs, a notice of motion concerning one property of the companies occupied by a third party has been taken out by that third party in these appeals. All these Motions are also heard and are being decided along with these appeals. 3. The short facts leading to these appeals are as follows:- . This company-SSCO was incorporated in the year - 10 - 1975 as a private shipping company with equal shareholding of Sippy Group led by one Kundan Sippy and another group known as Jaisingh Group. Vaishnav Puri of the Puri Group was employed at that time as a Senior Manager with Tata Group of Companies and handled its shipping liner business. Some times in 1977-78, Vaishnav Puri joined SSCO leading to Sippy Group, Jaisingh Group and Puri Group each having 33% shareholding in SSCO. 4. (i) Subsequently, Vaishnav Puri secured the agency of Contship for SSCO. An agreement between the two was entered into on 1st February 1991. This business developed over the years. (ii) Sometimes around 1994, disputes arose between Jaisingh Group and Sippy Group inter se resulting into litigation. One of the causes of the dispute was stated to be with respect to the use of the word "Samrat". In view of this dispute, Contship terminated the agency of SSCO by end of June 1996. 5. On 28th August 1996, SSTS was incorporated only by Puris and Sippys with equal shareholding. Contship appointed SSTS as its agent with effect from 1st October 1996. Jaisingh Group separated thereafter in March 1997. As a part of the settlement, the Jaising Group were not to use the word "Samrat" anylonger. - 11 - 6. (i) As stated earlier, Puri Group looked after the liner agency business all throughout, whereas the Sippy Group looked after its charter business. By the end of March 2001, the income from agency business went up from Rs.13 millions to Rs.23 millions. In the same period, the charter business showed a loss of Rs.3.58 crores. (ii) There is another significant development which has got to be noted. A private company by name Meridian Trading Pvt. Ltd. was set up as a subsidiary of SSCO some time in July 1988. It was to manufacture and export leather garments. It was looked after exclusively by Sippys. SSCO invested substantial amount in this company, but it consistently made losses and no dividends have ever been declared. It is the case of Puris that by end of March 2000 Meridian had a financial exposure of Rs.13 crores. It is their case that because of the disputes about the financial position of Meridian that the accounts were initially not signed. The accounts were finally signed by Puris after the Sippys assuring that personal guarantee by Puris for Meridian will be released and Meridian will be taken over by Sippys as a part of separation of business. (iii) Disputes, correspondence and discussions between the parties were going on either for conciliation or for separation. Lists of jointly held assets and businesses were prepared. Assistance of a professional mediator was taken. - 12 - 7. On this background, Sippy Group came to know in the first week of December 2001 about the Puri Group having set up a company by name Samrat Shipping & Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (for short "Samrat Logistics"). It also noted advertisements issued by Samrat Logistics on 10th December 2001 and 14th December 2001 holding out that it was the general agent of Contship in India. The Sippys were not informed about the notice of termination dated 1.9.2001 sent by Contship to SSTS which was received by Puris. The Sippy Group gave a notice to Samrat Logistics on 2nd January 2002 calling upon it to desist from using the word "Samrat". Initially efforts were made for mediation in January 2002 through an Advocate acting as Mediator. However, since they were not fruitful, ultimately the negotiations were terminated by Sippys and they filed a suit bearing No.400 of 2002 in this court seeking various reliefs against Samrat Logistics. This was mainly with respect to the use of word "Samrat" by Samrat Logistics. This suit was filed in the name of SSTS and SSCO. The Puri Group objected to the suit being filed in the name of these two companies and therefore the suit was withdrawn on 7/8th February 2002 with liberty to file a fresh suit. 8. Thereafter, Sippys wrote to Puris calling upon a meeting of the Board of Directors to consider action against Samrat Logistics, but Vaishnav Puri disputed - 13 - that Kundan Puri should preside over the meeting as Chairman. He suggested that the meeting should be called after an independent Chairman is appointed. Correspondence went on between the parties on these technicalities. Ultimately, the Sippy Group filed another suit bearing No.876 of 2002 in the High Court as a derivative action in their individual names as shareholders of SSTS against Puri Group and Samrat Logistics. They sought relief by way of injunction restraining the use of the word "Samrat" and restraining the passing off on that basis. The Puri Group produced in the court the records relating to incorporation of Samrat Logistics and ultimately agreed in April 2002 to change the name of Samrat Logistics to Seaworld Shipping & Logistics. In view thereof, this suit was subsequently withdrawn in September 2002 after filing the present company petitions. 9. (i) In June 2002, the Sippy Group filed Company Petition No.41 of 2002 Petition No.41 of 2002 Petition No.41 of 2002 before the CLB invoking sections 397 and 398 of the Act. It was filed against SSTS, Vaishnav Puri, Vishal Puri, Seaworld and Contship. It was alleged that the Puri Group had in breach of its fiduciary obligations to SSTS got the agency agreement of SSTS dated 1st October 1996 with Contship terminated and had induced Contship to enter into an agency agreement with Seaworld from 1st December 2001. The Sippy Group complained of oppression of mismanagement in the matter of SSTS. - 14 - (ii) The Sippy Group filed another petition being Company Petition No.40 of 2002 Company Petition No.40 of 2002 Company Petition No.40 of 2002 before the CLB. This was concerning the oppression and mismanagement by Puris in the matter of SSCO. Apart from raising the dispute about the diversion of the Contship agency of SSTS to a Puri company as affecting SSCO as well, it raised the question of Puris diverting an amount of Rs.49 lakhs lent to them by SSCO to purchase the shares of another company Neptune Oriental Lines (India) Pvt. Ltd. (N.O.L. for short) for the benefit of Puris and not refunding the amount . We will deal with this petition after dealing with Company Petition No.41 of 2002. 10. Company Petition No.41 of 2002 Company Petition No.41 of 2002 Company Petition No.41 of 2002 prayed for an injunction restraining Puris from transferring any funds out of India received from the agency agreement. It also sought mandatory order directing Contship to deposit in the CLB the amounts of commission, fees and remuneration received. The Sippy Group had alleged collusion between the Puri Group and Contship. It was contended that the business of SSTS to the tune of US$ 5 million per year was being deprived and diverted. It was submitted that Contship was liable to the Sippy Group and to SSTS as a constructive trustee. In para 26 of this petition, it was contended that floating of another company by using the name of "Samrat" for wrongful personal gain was an act of fraud on SSCO and the company (SSTS) and that the Puris had acted in - 15 - breach of their fiduciary duties and their conduct was harsh, burdensome and oppressive. In para 37, it was contended that there was a complete deadlock in the management, but to wind up the company would be unfairly prejudicial to the Petitioners. 11. (i). It is however relevant to note that Contship applied in that proceeding by filing Application No.162 of 2002 to be deleted as a Respondent on the ground that the agency agreement with SSTS had already been terminated and it was not a necessary party to the petition for oppression and mismanagement. This application made in August 2002 was allowed by the CLB by its order dated 11th November 2002. It is material to note that in the application, which was filed by Contship for this purpose, Contship specifically stated that it was aware that there were other shareholders in both SSCO and SSTS, but it had dealt with only Puris and "it had continued to have confidence in the professionalism of and faith/ trust in Mr.Puri to look after the interest of Contship in India." According to Puris, it is relevant to note that from 7th December 2001 onwards (when Sippys came to know about the business with Contship having been diverted), Sippys made no efforts to request Contship to reconsider their decision. The affidavit of Contship further stated that its commercial interest in India had been looked after by Mr.Puri all throughout and that it had never dealt with Sippys. It further stated that it had terminated - 16 - the agency of SSTS as it was concerned with safeguarding its own commercial and financial interest. (ii). Contship pointed out in this application that earlier SSCO was appointed as an agent from 1st February 1991 and this agency continued until 30.9.1996. SSTS was appointed as the agent from 1.10.1996. Clause 7.01 of the Agreement dated 1.10.1996 had provided the mechanism for termination and the agency had been terminated in accordance therewith. This Clause read as follows:- "7.01 This Agreement shall continue until terminated by either Party giving the other not less than three months’ notice in writing. In case of termination, the Agent shall always be entitled to receive usual commission in cargo booked by them in the notice period of three months, but shall not be separately entitled to compensation." (iii). In para (vii), Contship had stated as follows:- "(vii) It is a matter of fact that the Applicant Company has always dealt with Mr.Vaishnav Shorilal Puri, Respondent No.2 herein. The Applicant Company was aware that there were Shareholders and Directors other than Respondent No.2 in both Samrat Shipping Company Private - 17 - Limited and Samurai Shipping & Transport Systems Private Limited but Applicant Company never had dealing with any other person/s on any matter. The Applicant Company always had and continue to have confidence in the professionalism and faith/trust in Mr.Puri to look after the interest of the Applicant Company in India. In the changing scenario of globalization, the Applicant Company is