IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 28 OF 2005 SHRI PRAVIN GROVER AND 3 ORS., ... Appellants Versus SHRI SUNIL THUKRAL AND ANR., ... Respondents Shri A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 12th February, 2009 P.C. This appeal has been preferred by the original defendants against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, whereby he restrained the defendants/appellants from acting or posing themselves as the Directors of the Company and causing interference to the plaintiff no.2 and 3. They were also directed to surrender the Company vehicle. Further the defendants were restrained from taking forceful possession of hotel "Perola de Mar". 2. A few facts may be narrated as follows: There is a Company known as Candolim Developers Pvt. Ltd. and plaintiffs claim to be the Directors of the Company. The plaintiff no.1 claims to be the Managing Director and the plaintiff no.2 and 3 are the other Directors. They were said to be appointed on 30.11.1999. The share capital of the Company was increased from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- and it was recorded in the Memorandum of Association. 3. It was contended by the plaintiffs that the defendants are also posing themselves as the elected Directors of the Company and are trying to interfere with the affairs of the Company. The plaintiffs therefore, sought an order of injunction. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division passed an order restraining the defendants/appellants from posing themselves as the Directors of the Company and interfering with the working of the Company and functioning of the hotel. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondents and by consent of the learned counsel, the following order is passed: O R D E R The parties state that they desire that the Civil suit should be decided within a period of six months. The parties also desire that until the decision of the Civil Suit, the order passed on 06.07.2005 should continue and statusquo as on that date should continue. In view of the fact that the parties desire that the suit should be decided and statusquo should be maintained as on 06.07.2005, the appeal stands disposed off in the above terms. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. lh/.