Full Order Text
Final Order 1 · 27 Oct 2020 · CNR MHCC010043782020
Order Details: Notice of Motion Pdf Text: 1 N/M 1350/20 in S.C.SUIT no.1109/20 IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT MUMBAI. NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1350 OF 2020 (CNR no. MHCC01-004378-2020) IN SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO. 1109 OF 2020 (CNR no. MHCC01-004033-2020) 1. Mr. Madhukar Vishnu Talwalkar Age : about 87 years, residing at C-37/40, Pandurang Society, Near Sun-N-Sand Hotel, Juhu, Mumbai-49. ] ] ] ] 2. Mr. Girish Madhukar Talwalkar Age : about 59 years, residing at 101, Disha Aprts., Gulmohar Cross Road No.7, Opp. Costa Coffee, JVPD Scheme, Mumbai-28. ] ] ] ] ] 3. Mr. Prashant Sudhakar Talwalkar Age : about 58 years, residing at 26/27, Sheesh Mahal, Pali Hill Dmonte Park Road, Bandra, Mumbai-50. ] ] ] ] ]... Plaintiffs Versus 1. Mr. Vinayak Ratnakar Gawande Age : about 62 years, residing at A-231, Twin Towers, Twin Tower Lane, Opp. Siddhivinayk Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. ] ] ] ] ] 2. Mr. Harsha Ramdas Bhatkal Age : about 58 years, residing at N-5, Prathamesh CHS, Off Veer Savarkar Road, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. ] ] ] ] ] -- 1 of 11 -- 2 N/M 1350/20 in S.C.SUIT no.1109/20 3. Mr. Dinesh Shriniwas Rao Age : about 53 years, residing at H-304, Krishna Residency, Atmaram Compound, Behind Sunder Magar, Malad-West, Mumbai-400064. ] ] ] ] ] 4. Mr. Ananta Ratnakar Gawande Age : about 53 years, residing at A-173, Twin Towers, Twin Tower Lane, Opp. Siddhivinayk Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. ] ] ] ] ] 5. Mrs. Monika Khatri Age : not known, residing at Talwalkars Better Value Fitness Ltd., 801-813, Mahalaxmi Chambers, 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai-400 026. ] ] ] ] ] 6. Mrs. Geeta Tribhovandas Canabara Age not known, Occu : Company Secretary Geeta Canaber & Associates 405, Suchita Business Park, Behind Neelyog Square, Near Patel Chowk, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai-400 077. ] ] ] ] ] ] 7. Talwalkars Better Value Fitness Ltd., 801-813, Mahalaxmi Chambers, 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai-400 026. ] ] ] ]... Defendants Appearances:- Ld. Advocate Mr. Rajeev Matkar for the Plaintiffs. Ld. Advocate Mr. P. D. Gandhi for Defendants no.1 to 5. CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI C.V. MARATHE (Court Room no. 4) DATED : 27th October, 2020. -- 2 of 11 -- 3 N/M 1350/20 in S.C.SUIT no.1109/20 O R A L O R D E R 1. This is an application by Notice of Motion under O.XXXIX R.2 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. The suit arises due to conflicts between Directors of Defendant no.7 Company. The plaintiffs have challenged resolution dated 16.01.2020 passed in the meeting of Board of Directors on the ground of “fraud” and in the instant Notice of Motion they have prayed for temporary injunction (a) restraining the defendants from preventing them from having access to the entire record and server of the defendant no.7 Company including but not limited to minutes books, income tax returns, case papers, loan procurement papers, profit and loss accounts and balance sheet of the Company at 801- 813, Mahalaxmi Chambers 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai- 400026 and (b) restraining the defendants from further acting upon the resolution dated 16.01.2020. It is to be noted at the first hearing of the suit, the Ld. Advocate for the defendants no.1 to 5 made statement that the defendants never objected the plaintiffs from accessing to the record and gave no objection for granting prayer clause (a). In view of the said submission there is no hurdle to grant prayer clause (a) of the Notice of Motion and therefore, the same is granted. 3. Coming to the prayer clause (b), the plaintiffs have prayed for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from further acting upon the resolution of the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 16.01.2020 till final disposal of the suit. At the -- 3 of 11 -- 4 N/M 1350/20 in S.C.SUIT no.1109/20 cost of repitition the challenge to the said resolution is on the ground of “fraud”. 4. To ascertain the controversy, the plaint allegations can be usefully narrated as under : The plaintiffs no. 1 to 3 are traditionally in the field of body building and fitness training centres. In the year 2003, the Company name “Talwalkars Bettervalue Fitness Private Ltd.” was formed. The said Company became a public limited Company and its name was changed to Talwalkars Better Value Fitness Ltd. (defendant no.7). The address of the said Company is at 801-813, Mahalaxmi Chambers, 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai-400026 (hereinafter “registered office”). The registered office building is owned by Gawande Consultants Pvt. Ltd. wherein present defendants no.1 to 4 collectively hold more than 99% share capital. The plaintiffs, the defendants no.1 to 4 are common directors in defendant no.7 Company and many other fitness companies all over India. These defendants are qualified professionals in various finance related subjects while the plaintiffs were always focused on running of Gymnasiums which was their traditional expertise. The role of defendants was to raise finance, manage accounts, maintain the books, tax payment etc. 5. The defendants brought in the finance from Axis Bank and from other sources. In recent past differences between the plaintiffs and defendants no.1 to 4 in relation to the affairs of the defendant no.7 Company arose. The defendants did not handle the -- 4 of 11 -- 5 N/M 1350/20 in S.C.SUIT no.1109/20 accounts in transparent manner. In 2018, the defendants transferred an amount of Rs.16 Crores from the Axis Bank account of defendant no.7 to Talwalkars Health Club Ltd. by only using scanned copy of the cheque with the signature of Harsha Bhatkal. After transferring the amount, the defendants no.1 to 4 approached the plaintiff no.3 for signing the cheque. The plaintiff no.3 did not participate in such manipulation and retained the concerned cheque and relevant communications with him. Similarly, the plaintiff no.3 returned many attendance sheets/minutes unsigned in disagreements. 6. On 16.01.2020, the defendants fixed the meeting of the Board of Directors but there was no resolution to shift registered office from one place to another. No minutes were circulated and / or ever signed by plaintiffs. The registered office was never vacated. The records, common seal and statutory books of the Company were never shifted out of the registered office. Despite of the above and as a part of design to defraud the plaintiffs and to run away from the responsibilities of the Company and shift the onus upon the plaintiffs for their irregularities and failures in respect of accounts, finances and debts of the Company, defendants created false resolution dated 16.01.2020 for shifting the registered office. 7. The defendants have denied allegations of fraud in toto. Their defence is as under : On 16.01.2020, the meeting was scheduled after sending emails to all the directors on 13.01.2020. The agenda of the meeting was also circulated. The plaintiffs replied the email confirming their -- 5 of 11 -- 6 N/M 1350/20 in S.C.SUIT no.1109/20 presence. The available agenda of the said meeting on 16.01.2020 the board meeting was held at the registered office and the same was attended by the plaintiffs no.1 and 2 and defendant no. 1. Among other business agenda, the issue of change of registered office was discussed and was duly approved by the Directors. On the basis of such resolution, registered office of defendants no. 7 was changed to ground floor, Mangal Simran, Off Turner Road, 20th Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400050 (hereinafter “Mangal Simran”) and accordingly, registered office of the Company was notified by submitting form INC-22. 8. The Ld. Advocate for the defendants has submitted that the Mangal Simran office is exclusively owned by defendant no.7 Company. The defendants have further contended that the plaintiffs were actively involved and were in control of finance and accounts of defendant no.7 Company, They cannot run away from the responsibilities being Managing Director and CEO, the defendants have not committed any fraud and therefore, Notice of Motion is liable to be dismissed. 9. From the plaint allegations and the affidavit in reply filed by defendants no.1 to 5, undisputed fact emerges that defendant no.7 Company is facing financial crisis in as much as the parties have received notices from Income Tax Department and other agencies and due to heavy default in loan repayment of Axis Bank, action was started for the recovery of loan. These aspects are important because there is every likelihood that the properties of the Company may be sealed, attached by the agencies or the bank and -- 6 of 11 -- 7 N/M 1350/20 in S.C.SUIT no.1109/20 the allegations of fraud in resolution dated 16.01.2020 to change the registered office to Mangal Simran will have to be looked into in that background. Even though, the defendants have claimed that the plaintiffs are Managing Director and CEO of defendant no.7 Company, they are solely responsible for the finance, banking and legal matters. The shareholders agreement between parties dated 26.06.2003 speaks differenct and clearly stipulates in paragraph no.3.4 “The GAWANDES have expertise in banking, financial and legal matters and they hereby undertake to be personally involved in the day to day operational activities of the Company so far as these areas are concerned and to make adequate time available for the same”. It is also stated in paragraph no. 4.1 “It shall be the responsibility of the GAWANDES to raise and/or bring in finance either by bank loans or otherwise as may be required by the Company from time to time for the existing and/or new projects after ascertaining the merits and feasibility of each such project.” In paragraph no. 5.1 and 5.3 it is mentioned “The GAWANDES are taking responsibility for appointment of internal auditor of the Company and submission of all screening of financial accounts, MIS reports.” From these stipulations in the agreement, it is abundantly clear that the defendants no.1 to 4 were responsible for banking, financial and legal matters of defendant no.7 Company.” 10. Coming to the Board Meeting dated 16.01.2020, it is under challenge by the plaintiffs. Ld. Advocate for the defendants has taken me through various emails informing about the said meeting of the board and their acknowledgment. The contents of -- 7 of 11 -- 8 N/M 1350/20 in S.C.SUIT no.1109/20 email dated 13.01.2020 issued by the defendant no.5 Monika Khatri reveal the agenda of the meeting. Point no.3 of the agenda reads “To vacate registered office of the Company at 801-813, Mahalaxmi Chambers as per notice given by the landlords.” Point no. 5 reads “To discuss non signing of several minutes by the Talwalkars in respect of concluded meeting of both the Companies TBVF and THL.” From the above point no.3, the subject of the meeting was to vacate the registered address office. It is worth noticing that by resolution dated 16.01.2020 the registered address of the Company was change to Mangal Simran. It means the registered office was shifted to Mangal Simran vide the said resolution. If shifting of the registered office was agenda of the meeting, then the email would have been written in the same line. The use of word “vacate” in point no.3 of the agenda of the said meeting was referring to shifting of the registered address. Moreover, the agenda speaks that the registered office was to be vacated as per the notice given by the landlords. It is not in dispute that the defendants no.1 and 4 are the landlords. The defendants have failed to produce any notice given by the defendants no. 1 to 4 to vacate the registered office. This creates doubt about the resolution dated 16.01.2020. Moreover, the said email has been sent by defendant no.5 Monika Khatri whose designation in the defendant no.7 is unknown. The plaintiffs have filed the notices of previous board meeting which are signed by Company Secretary. Moreover, the agenda were also notified in tabular form. It is also important to note that even after the alleged resolution dated 16.01.2020, the records, books of accounts, server of the Company are never shifted to the new address till today. The -- 8 of 11 -- 9 N/M 1350/20 in S.C.SUIT no.1109/20 defendants have tried to show that due to lock down, this could not be done. However, the lock down in Maharashtra started from 16.03.2020. The alleged resolution was passed on 16.01.2020. Therefore, in these two months also no efforts were taken to shift the records to the new office. Even though the plaintiffs are not denying receipt of notice of the board meeting dated 16.01.2020, the manner in which the meeting was called and the resolution passed in the meeting clearly comes under scanner and detail inquiry is necessary to find out whether the intent was to shirk the responsibilities of defendants and to avoid action of sealing, attachment of the properties of the defendant no.7 by changing address from Mahalaxmi to Mangal Simran. 11. From the above discussion, it is prima facie demonstrated that the defendants have created the resolution dated 16.01.2020 to shift the office from Mahalaxmi to Mangal Simran to avoid the responsibilities of the Company and to protect the registered office address from attachment in future. Thorough inquiry is necessary to find out whether it was done fraudulently or not and it will be done in the course of hearing of the suit. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for prayer clause (b). Hence, following order : ORDER 1. The Notice of Motion no. 1350 of 2020 is allowed. 2. The defendants their agents, servants or any persons on their behalf are temporarily restrained from further acting upon the resolution of the meeting of Board of Directors held on 16.01.2020 pursuant to items no.3 of agenda of the meeting till final disposal of the suit. -- 9 of 11 -- 10 N/M 1350/20 in S.C.SUIT no.1109/20 3. Costs in cause. (C. V. Marathe) Judge, Date : 27.10.2020. City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai. Dictated on : 27.10.2020 Transcribed on : 28.10.2020 Signed by HHJ on : 29.10.2020 -- 10 of 11 -- 11 N/M 1350/20 in S.C.SUIT no.1109/20 CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.” UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 29.10.2020 at 1.30 p.m. NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : Mrs. G. P. Acharekar Name of the Judge (With Court Room no.) HHJ Shri. C. V. Marathe C.R. no.04 Date of Pronouncement of JUDGMENT/ORDER 27/10/2020 JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on 29/10/2020 JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 29/10/2020 -- 11 of 11 --
