HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.C.No.1204 of 2009 and C.M.A.M.P.No.1765 of 2009 in C.M.A.No.443 of 2009 Date: 11-03-2011 C.C.No.1204 of 2009: Between: Ravi Sanghi …….. petitioner and M/s. Sanghi Polyesters Ltd and others ………. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.C.No.1204 of 2009 and C.M.A.M.P.No.1765 of 2009 in C.M.A.No.443 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: (Per BPR, J) Since these two matters arose out of the same proceedings, hence, they are taken up together for disposal. The contempt case, filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, is at the instance of the defendant to hold that the respondents 1 to 8 herein are liable for willful disobedience of the orders passed, while disposing of the appeal, in C.M.A.No.443 of 2009, dated 30-04-2009 and also that of the trial Court in the interim application in I.A.No.3504 of 2009 in O.S.No.1223 of 2009, dated 21- 01-2009. Briefly the facts, which gave rise to the present proceedings, are that in the suit, the first respondent-plaintiff filed an interim application seeking ad-interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with 151 of C.PC. restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with the functions of the Managing Director in any other manner in the plaintiff- company. Making certain allegations against the petitioner herein and pointing out certain irregularities on his part, the suit was filed and interim injunction was sought for as stated above. The said application was contested by the petitioner herein, inter alia, on various grounds. The trial Court initially did not find favour to grant injunction as sought for since the petitioner herein cannot be restrained as he has got his own rights in the company and all the questions and the complaint as pointed out by the plaintiff necessarily have to be gone into at the time of trial of the suit. Therefore, as per the orders, dated 21-01-2009, the application was disposed of by directing both parties to maintain status quo of the subject matter till the disposal of the main suit. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal was filed by the plaintiff in C.M.A.No.443 of 2009 before this Court and the same was disposed of by order, dated 13-04-2009, after hearing both sides, reiterating the very same reason and further expressing the desirability of disposal of the suit as expeditiously as possible and with further direction that the orders of status quo granted by the trial Court shall continue to remain till the date of disposal of the suit. It is the aforesaid order which, according to the petitioner, is alleged to have been violated. In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, several allegations have been made including the chequred events as to how the first respondent-plaintiff has taken recourse to the violation. Contesting the same, there is total denial on the part of the respondents herein. Alleging that there has been a Board Meeting on 30-07-2009 and a decision was taken, which is in violation of the orders of status quo, the petitioner filed separate application in C.M.A.M.P.No.1765 of 2009. This application is also heard along with the contempt case. The respondents have filed counter once again denying the allegations and asserting that the Board has ample powers. Having heard the counsel on either side and also on perusal of the material on record, we are of the view that, as rightly observed by the trial Court and also by this Court while disposing of the appeal, there are apparently differences and disputes between the Directors of the Company which has resulted into present civil proceedings making allegations and counter allegations and thereby seeking the reliefs. Having regard to the nature of business and the affairs contained therein and even taking into account various allegations made against each other, it is certainly a matter which requires an enquiry on regular trial whereupon only the real issue or controversy can set at rest by appropriate orders. In view of the same, it cannot be said that there is any contempt as such more so when there is a finding by the trial Court itself that the petitioner is not a stranger, but he is being sought to be excluded in the affairs of the company. There is also no dispute to the fact that the company, its affairs and the business is a running one and it cannot be said that there is any violation. Having regard to the findings, which have been arrived at exclusively on facts, it cannot be said that the same are either perverse or otherwise nor can be interfered with. No question of law much less any substantial one arises in these matters to come to a different conclusion. In the circumstances, leaving open for the parties to canvass all their rights, title and interest and claims and substantiate the same before the trial Court, which will be gone into on merits and disposed of in accordance with law, we do not find any merits in the contempt case nor any justification to grant the relief sought in C.M.A.M.P.No.1765 of 2009. Accordingly, both the contempt case and the C.M.A.M.P. are dismissed. No costs. ________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J _______________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date: 11-03-2011 YCR