Calcutta High Court
Aloka Ojha & Anr vs Calcutta Safe Deposit Company Limited & … on 31 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
ORIGINAL SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Krishna Rao
R.V.W.O. No. 19 of 2024
With
GA No. 1 of 2024
With
GA No. 2 of 2024
In
CS No. 159 of 2010
Aloka Ojha & Anr.
Versus
Calcutta Safe Deposit Company Limited & Ors.
Mr. Rupak Ghosh
Mr. Sayantan Chatterjee
Mr. Amit Kr. Nag
Mr. Partha Banerjee
Ms. Rishika Sarkar
... For the applicants/petitioners.
Mr. Sakya Sen, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Amritam Mandal
2
Mrs. Ananya Chakraborty
Ms. Shipra Naskar
... For the respondent nos. 2 & 4.
Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rohit Banerjee
Mr. Asoke Basu
Mr. Altamas Alim
... For the respondent no. 5.
Hearing Concluded On : 23.06.2025
Judgment on : 31.07.2025
Krishna Rao, J.:
1. The applicants, namely, Aloka Ojha and Meera Seal have filed this
present Review Application for review of the order passed by this Court
dated 12th April, 2023 in G.A. No. 21 of 2022 in C.S. No. 159 of 2010
along with an application being G.A. No. 1 of 2024 for condoning the
delay of 329 days in preferring the review application and G.A. No. 2 of
2024 for staying of the order dated 12th April, 2023. The Review
Application along with connected applications are taken up for hearing
together.
2. Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Learned Advocate representing the petitioners
submits that at the internal page 6 last paragraph and page 7 second
last and last paragraph of the judgment dated 12th April, 2023, it is
recorded that the mother of the petitioner no.1 was the defendant no.4.
He submits that Maya Devi Ojha was not the mother of Anup Ojha.
3
Anup Ojha is the son of Late Chimanlal Ojha and Late Mridula Devi
Ojha, who are not the defendants in the suit filed by the petitioners.
3. Mr. Ghosh submits that in the said order, it is recorded that Maya Devi
Ojha is the wife of Chimanlal Ojha which is also not correct. He
submits that Maya Devi Ojha is the wife of Late Gunvant Rai Ojha. He
submits that this Court by the judgment dated 12th April, 2023, Anup
Ojha was added as substituted defendant no.4 in the suit but Anup
Ojha cannot be substituted in place of defendant no.4 as he is not the
son of Maya Devi Ojha.
4. Mr. Ghosh submits that though this Court by an order dated 9th
October, 2023 has made some clarifications but the said clarifications
has not completely clarified the issue and thus the order dated 12th
April, 2023 is required to be reviewed.
5. Mr. Ghosh relied upon the judgment in the case of Lily Thomas and
Others Vs. Union of India & Others reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224
and submits that if the Court finds that the error pointed out in the
review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would
not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did
not exist and its perpetration shall result in a miscarriage of justice
nothing would preclude the Court from rectifying the error.
6. Mr. Ghosh submits that while passing the order dated 12th April, 2023,
this Court has not considered the order passed by the Hon’ble Justice
Soumen Sen dated 3rd December, 2018 wherein the application filed by
4
Shri Bhaskar Ojha for impleading him as party to the suit was
dismissed. He submits that the order dated 3th December, 2018 became
final and binding upon all the parties and would operate as res
judicata.
7. Mr. Ghosh relied upon the Judgment in the case of Dr. Shah Faesal
and Another Vs. Union of India & Another reported in (2020) 4 SCC
1 and submits that it is settled principle of law that the decision
rendered by a Coordinate Bench is binding on the subsequent Benches
of equal or lesser strength.
8. Mr. Ghosh relied upon the judgment in the case of Sultan Said
Ibrahim Vs. Prakasan and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1218 and submits that the principles of res judicata apply not only to
two different proceedings but also to different stages of the same
proceeding as well.
9. Mr. Sakya Sen, Learned Senior Advocate representing the defendant
nos. 2 and 4 submits that Anup Ojha never claimed to be the son of
Maya Devi Ojha. In the application being G.A. No. 21 of 2022, Anup
Ojha clearly stated that he is the son of Late Chimanlal Ojha who was
the Chairman of the Board from 1990 to 1995.
10. Mr. Sen submits that in all pleadings, the contention of Anup Ojha
was that as per Terms of Settlement, consent order was passed in the
year 1989 and the same was modified in the year 1992 and his father
Late Chimanlal Ojha was the Member of the Board and Chairman as
5
well. Being the legal heir of Chimanlal Ojha, he should be inducted
unto the Board after adding him as party defendant in the suit. He
submits that the defendants have never described Mr. Anup Ojha as
son of Maya Devi Ojha.
11. Mr. Sen submits that the order dated 3rd December, 2018 was disclosed
and marked as Annexure “B” and annexed at page 11 of Affidavit-in-
reply. He submits that pleadings were also made in paragraph 5 (vii).
He submits that when the earlier petition was filed, there were Board
members and over and above the Board members, there were Special
Officers appointed, due to which the Hon’ble Judge has not entertained
the prayer of Bhaskar Ojha to be appointed as Board member.
12. Mr. Sen submits that Bhaskar Ojha filed an application being G.A. No.
21 of 2022 for impleading him as defendant in the suit as well as in the
Interim Board of Management due to change in circumstances. He
submits that there was only one living Board member who is the legal
heir of Late Amritlal Ojha and all the other Board members had expired
and the Special Officer was solely running the affairs of the company at
his own whims and will for which the necessity of induction of Bhaskar
Ojha in place of his father Promod Rai Ojha as defendant no.2 in the
suit and accordingly, he has made an application.
13. Mr. Sen submits that in the order dated 12th April, 2023, this Court in
several paragraphs categorically stated that Anup Ojha is the son of
6
Late Chimanlal Ojha and Bhaskar Ojha is the son of Late Pramod Rai
Ojha.
14. Mr. Sen submits that in paragraph 3, it was wrongly recorded that “the
mother of petitioner no.1 was defendant no.4” but after her death “the
name of the mother of petitioner no.1 was deleted”.
15. Mr. Sen submits that in paragraph 5, it is wrongly recorded that “after
the death of Chimanlal Ojha, his wife, Maya Devi Ojha, became one of
the members of the Interim Board of Management, and was also made
defendant no. 4 in the present suit”.
16. Mr. Sen submits that in paragraph 7, it was wrongly recorded that
“after the death of father of petitioner no.1, the mother was inducted as
member of the Board and also made defendant in the instant suit”.
17. Mr. Sen submits that in paragraph 8, it was wrongly recorded that “as
petitioners were substituted as defendant no.2 and 4 in the suit, and
thus the petitioners shall be inducted as members of Interim Board of
Management in place of Pramod Rai Ojha and Smt. Maya Devi Ojha”.
18. Mr. Sen submits that name of Maya Devi Ojha came mistakenly as the
mother of Anup Ojha, though Anup Ojha is the son of Late Chimanlal
Ojha. Maya Devi Ojha was the wife of Gunvant Rai Ojha. Both
Chimanlal Ojha and Gunvant Rai Ojha, were the members of the
Interim Board as per Terms of Settlement of 1989 and 1992. He
submits that the induction do not start from Maya Devi Ojha, but from
7
the Board Members of 1989 and 1992. He submits that the said
mistakes are curable and corrected by an order dated 9th October, 2023
and review is not needed.
19. Mr. Sen relied upon the judgment in the case of Kamlesh Verma vs.
Mayawati & Ors. reported in (2003) 8 SCC 320 and submits that
review of the earlier order cannot be done unless the Court is satisfied
that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its
soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. Mr. Sen also relied upon
the judgment in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi and Another
Vs. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and Others reported in (2023) 9 SCC
757.
20. Mr. Sen submits that the statements made in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 15,
16, 17 and 18 of G.A. No. 1 of 2024 in RVWO are totally false. He
submits that the order dated 12th April, 2023, was passed in presence
of all parties and not behind back as falsely alleged by the petitioners.
He submits that from the day one, the petitioners were aware of the
judgment dated 12th April, 2023. Mr. Sen in support of his submission
relied upon the Judgment in the case of Binod Bihari Singh vs. Union
of India & Ors. reported in (1993) 1 SCC 572 and submitted that in
the said case, the appellant has taken a false stand on the question of
receipt of the signed copy of the award to get rid of the bar of limitation,
should not be encouraged to get any premium on the falsehood on his
part by rejecting the plea of limitation raised by the respondent.
8
21. The petitioners have prayed for condonation of delay of 329 days in
preferring the Review Application. At the time of hearing, other
applications along with G.A. No. 21 of 2022, the present Advocate was
not conducting the case on behalf of the plaintiffs/petitioners and when
the petitioners have contacted the present Advocate, on perusal of
record, they finds that in the order dated 12th April, 2023, the
description of Anup Ojha as son of Maya Devi Ojha is mentioned and it
was also found that on previous occasion, Bhaskar Ojha has filed an
application for impleading him as party to the suit but the same was
rejected by an order dated 3rd December, 2018 and this Court while
passing the order dated 12th April, 2023 has not considered the said
order and allowed Bhaskar Ojha to be party to the suit and also to be
one of the member of the Interim Board of Management.
22. Mr. Sen desist the application for condoning delay and submitted that
the averments made in the application are false but the fact remains
that the present Advocates were not on record. The plaintiffs have
subsequently engaged the present Advocates and after going through
the papers and orders, the Learned Advocates have come to know that
in the order dated 12th April, 2023, this Court has described Anup Ojha
as son of Maya Devi Ojha in several paragraphs of the order and has
also not considered the order dated 3rd December, 2018 wherein on
previous occasion, the application of Bhaskar Ojha was rejected for
impleading him as party to the suit.
9
23. Considering the above, this Court finds that the petitioners have shown
sufficient cause for not filing Review Application within prescribed time
and the Review Application to be heard on merit, thus the delay of 329
days in filing the Review Application is allowed.
24. Mr. Anup Ojha and Mr. Bhaskar Ojha have jointly filed an application
being G.A. No. 21 of 2022, praying for the following reliefs:
a) Direct Mr. Anup Ojha, being the son of Late
Chimanlal Ojha and Mr. Bhaskar Ojha, son of
Late Promod Rai Ojha representing each of their
branches to be inducted in the Interim Board of
Management after adding them first as party
defendants in the instant administrative suit;
b) Ad-interim order in terms of prayer above;
c) Pass such further and other order and/or orders
and direction and/or directions as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit proper.
25. All parties participated at the time of hearing of the application being
G.A. No. 21 of 2022 and by an order dated 12th April, 2023, this Court
disposed of the said application by substituting Bhaskar Ojha and
Anup Ojha as defendant nos. 2 and 4 in the suit and also inducting
them as members of the Interim Board of Management in place of
Pramode Rai Ojha and Maya Devi Ojha.
26. The 1st contention raised by the plaintiffs of the suit/petitioners in the
present application is that this Court in the order dated 12th April,
2023, described Anup Ojha as son of Maya Devi Ojha but he is not the
son of Maya Devi Ojha. He is the son of Late Chimanlal Ojha. This
Court considered the submissions of Mr. Rupak Ghosh and perused
10
the order dated 12th April, 2023 and found that this Court has
described Maya Devi Ojha as mother of Anup Ojha which is not correct.
Maya Devi Ojha is the wife of Gunvant Rai Ojha. In place of Maya Devi
Ojha, the name of the father of Anup Ojha is to be recorded as
Chimanlal Ojha.
27. In page 6, paragraph 2 of the order dated 12th April, 2023, it is recorded
as:
“In the present suit, the father of the petitioner
no.2 was the defendant no.2 and mother of the
petitioner no.1 was the defendant no.4 but after
their death, the name of the father of the petitioner
no.2 and the name of the mother of petitioner no.1
were deleted”.
The said paragraph is to be read as:
“In the present suit, the father of the petitioner
no.2 was the defendant no.2 and father of the
petitioner no.1 was the defendant no.4 but after
their death, the name of the father of the petitioners
were deleted”
28. In page 6, paragraph 4 in sixth line of the order dated 12th April, 2023,
it is recorded as:
“After the death of Chimman Lal Ojha”,
The same is to be read as:
“After the death of Gunwant Rai Ojha”,
29. In page 7, paragraph, 2 line nos. 3 and 4, it is recorded as :
“after the death of the father of the petitioner
no.1, the mother was inducted”
11
The same is to be read as :
“after the death of Gunwant Rai Ojha, his wife was
inducted”
30. In page 7, paragraph 3 last line, it is recorded as:
“and Smt. Maya Devi Ojha”
The same is to be read as:
“and Chimman Lal Ojha”. Instead of Smt. Maya Devi
Ojha.
31. By an order dated 9th October, 2023, this Court has clarified that
Promod Rai Ojha died and in his place, his son Bhaskar Ojha has been
substituted. The defendant no.4, namely, Maya Devi Ojha died but she
had no legal heirs. One Anup Ojha was also brought on record being
the legal heir of Chimanlal Ojha. Though this Court by an order dated
9th October, 2023 has clarified that Anup Ojha is son of Chimanlal
Ojha but after perusing the order dated 12th April, 2023, this Court
finds that in several paragraphs, the description of Anup Ojha is not
correct.
32. The second contention raised by the plaintiffs/petitioners is that Mr.
Bhaskar Ojha on previous occasion, has filed an application for
impleading him as party to the suit but the same was rejected by this
Court by an order dated 3rd December, 2018, thus the application filed
by Bhaskar Ojha is barred by res judicata.
12
The order dated 3rd December, 2018, passed in G.A. No. 3117 of
2018 in C.S. No. 159 of 2010 read as follows:
“The Court : This is an application by one
Bhaskar Ojha, son of Promod Ojha for impleading
him as a party in the suit. The original suit was
filed against the defendant no.1 and the persons in
management. The allegation was that the interim
board of management of which the father of the
applicant was one of the members, were
mismanaging the affairs of the defendant no.1 and
it is in that capacity the defendant no.2 was made
a party. In the suit the principal prayer is that the
interim board of management constituted on the
basis of the terms of settlement is void and/or
nullity. Recently, the interim board of management
has been reconstituted. The applicant is not in the
interim board of management.
There are no allegations against the present
petitioner. There is also no possibility of applicant
suffering any adverse order in the suit. On such
consideration, this application fails. However, there
will be no order as to costs.”
33. When the order dated 3rd December, 2018, was passed at that time
Girish Chandra Ojha, Maya Devi Ojha, Navin Chandra Ojha and Sriram
Amritlal Ojha were the surviving members of the Interim Board. This
Court has not allowed the prayer of Bhaskar Ojha on the pretext that
recently Interim Board of Management was constituted and Bhaskar
Ojha was not in the Interim Board of Management. This Court also
found that there is no allegation against the applicant and there is no
possibility of applicant suffering any adverse order in the suit.
After the order dated 3rd December, 2018, Maya Devi Ojha expired
in the year 2013, Navin Chandra Ojha expired in the year 2021 and it
13
is also confirmed by the parties that Girish Chandra Ojha expired on
9th June, 2016 at Brussels, Belgium.
Upon death of four members of Interim Board of Management,
Sriram Amritlal Ojha was alone surviving member of the Interim Board
of Management prior to the order dated 12th April, 2023.
34. Anup Ojha, Son of Late Chimanlal Ojha and Bhaskar Ojha, Son of Late
Promod Rai Ojha have filed their joint application being G.A. No. 21 of
2022 for induction of their names in the plaint and adding them in the
Interim Board of Management. One Mukesh Keshavlal Ojha, son of Late
Keshavlal Ojha filed an application being G.A. No. 22 of 2022 praying
for inducting him as one of the member of the Interim Board of
Management. The plaintiffs, namely, Aloka Ojha and Meera Seal have
filed an application being G.A. No. 25 of 2023 praying for inducting of
Scheme for the Management and Administration of the affairs of the
defendant no.1 Company and allied prayers. All applications were
disposed of by separate orders dated 12th April, 2023 wherein this
Court allowed the prayer of Anup Ojha and Bhaskar Ojha. Prayer made
in G.A. No. 22 of 2022 by Mukesh Keshavlal Ojha was dismissed and
the prayer of Aloka Ojha and Meera Seal was allowed to the extent that
any one of them be made as member of the Interim Board of
Management.
35. In the case of Dr. Shah Faesal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that:
14
“23. This brings us to the question, as to
whether a ruling of a coordinate Bench binds
subsequent coordinate Benches. It is now a settled
principle of law that the decision rendered by a
coordinate Bench is binding on the subsequent
Benches of equal or lesser strength. The aforesaid
view is reinforced in the National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi wherein this Court held that:
59.1. The two-Judge Bench in Santosh
Devi should have been well advised to refer
the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a
different view than what has been stated in
Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate
Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the
same strength cannot take a contrary view
than what has been held by another
coordinate Bench.”
In the case of Sulthan Said Ibrahim (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that:
“53. The High Court, in its impugned order,
held the application of the appellant under Order I
Rule 10 to be barred by res judicata, and thus not
maintainable on that ground. We find no infirmity
in the said observation made by the High Court.
This Court in Bhanu Kumar Jain v Archana Kumar
reported in (2005) 1 SCC 787 observed that the
principles of res judicata apply not only to two
different proceedings but also to different stages of
the same proceeding as well. The relevant
observations are reproduced hereinbelow:
“18. It is now well settled that principles of
res judicata apply in different stages of the same
proceedings.
19. In Y.B. Patil [(1976) 4 SCC 66] it was
held:
“4……….. It is well settled that principles
of res judicata can be invoked not only in
separate subsequent proceedings, they also
get attracted in subsequent stage of the same
proceedings. Once an order made in the
course of a proceeding becomes final, it would
15be binding at the subsequent stage of that
proceeding.”
21. Yet again in Hope Plantations Ltd.
[(1999) 5 SCC 590] this Court laid down the law
in the following terms:
17…. One important consideration of public
policy is that the decisions pronounced by courts
of competent jurisdiction should be final, unless
they are modified or reversed by appellate
authorities; and the other principle is that no one
should be made to face the same kind of
litigation twice over, because such a process
would be contrary to considerations of fair play
and justice.”
36. In the year 2018, Bhaskar Ojha had filed an application being G.A. No.
3117 of 2018 in C.S. No. 159 of 2010 praying for impleading him as
party in the suit. This Court by an order dated 3rd December, 2018,
rejected the prayer of Bhaskar Ojha. The said order is not challenged
and attained its finality. This Court also noted that Bhaskar Ojha filed
the said application after the death of his father Promod Rai Ojha.
Though he has filed an application along with Anup Ojha for
impleading him as party to the suit and also in the Interim Board of
Management but has not prayed for modification of the order dated 3rd
December, 2018 wherein his prayer for impleading him as party to the
suit was dismissed.
37. In paragraph 14 of G.A. No. 21 of 2022, it was mentioned that Bhaskar
Ojha had made an earlier application and was also faced with objection
from the senior members of the family and he has filed the application
16
on the ground of parity that the two daughters of the original plaintiff
have been made party to the suit as substituted plaintiff.
38. Considering the above, this Court finds that by an order dated 3rd
December, 2018, this Court already rejected the application filed by Mr.
Bhaskar Ojha for impleading him as party to the suit and the said
order reached its finality. Sitting in the Coordinate Jurisdiction, it
would not be proper for this Court to ignore the order dated 3rd
December, 2018 and to allow Bhaskar Ojha to be a party to the suit.
While passing the order dated 12th April, 2023, this Court has not
taken into consideration of the order dated 3rd December, 2018 and
allowed Mr. Bharskar Ojha be a party to the suit.
39. In the case of Lily Thomas and Others Vs. Union of India and
Others reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that:
“52. The dictionary meaning of the word
“review” is “the act of looking, offer something again
with a view to correction or improvement”. It cannot
be denied that the review is the creation of a
statute. This Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi v.
Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji held that the power
of review is not an inherent power. It must be
conferred by law either specifically or by necessary
implication. The review is also not an appeal in
disguise. It cannot be denied that justice is a virtue
which transcends all barriers and the rules or
procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in
the way of administration of justice. Law has to
bend before justice. If the Court finds that the error
pointed out in the review petition was under a
mistake and the earlier judgment would not have
been passed but for erroneous assumption which
in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result
17in a miscarriage of justice nothing would preclude
the Court from rectifying the error.”
40. This Court has the Power of Review, but it must be exercised within the
frame work of Section 114, read with Order XLVII, of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. Thus, a Review Petition is maintainable on (i)
discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after the
exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledge of review
petition or could not be produced by him when the order was passed,
(ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record, (iii) for any other sufficient reason. A judgment/order can be
reviewed if there is mistake or an error apparent on the face of the
record. The mistake or error must be apparent on the face of the record
and not the one which is required to be searched out. In the present
case there are mistakes and errors appearing on the face the
judgement/order dated 12th April, 2023. In the case of Lily Thomas
(supra), the words “any other sufficient reason appearing in order XLVII
Rule 1 of the CPC” means “a reason sufficient on grounds at least
analogous to those specified in the rule”. Error apparent on the face of
the proceedings is an error which is based on clear ignorance or
disregard of the provisions of law. This Court finds that the order dated
12th April, 2023 had within the scope and ambit of the above
parameters.
41. In the present case, this Court finds that while passing an order dated
12th April, 2023 has not considered the order dated 3rd December, 2018
18
wherein this Court has rejected the application filed by Bhaskar Ojha.
Mr. Bhaskar Ojha filed the said application being GA No. 3117 of 2018
after the death of his father and this Court while passing the order
dated 3rd December, 2018, taken notice of the same but refused to
implead him as party to the suit. In the judgement dated 12th April,
2023, this Court has recorded wrong fact that Anup Ojha is the son of
Maya Devi Ojha in several paragraphs. Both errors are appearing on
the face of the judgment dated 12th April, 2023.
42. Considering the facts and circumstances mentioned herein above, this
Court finds that the order dated 12th April, 2023 passed in G.A. No. 21
of 2022 is required to be reviewed and is accordingly reviewed in the
following manner:
“The petitioners have filed the instant
application praying for induction of the petitioner in
the Board of Management after adding them as
party defendant in the present suit. The petitioner
no.1 is the son of Late Chiman Lal Ojha and the
petitioner no. 2 is the son of Late Pramode Rai
Ojha.
One Amrit Lal Ojha, since deceased, the
grandfather of the petitioners had formed a
Company namely M/s. Calcutta Safe Deposit Co.
Ltd., the respondent no.1 herein. Amrit Lal Ojha
died in the year 1944 and after his death certain
dispute and differences arose between the sons of
the deceased Amrit Lal Ojha with respect of the
Company, respondent no.1 herein. The father of the
petitioner no. 2 namely, Pramode Rai Ojha, since
deceased had filed a suit before this Court being
CS. No. 560 of 1976 praying for management and
administration of the respondent no. 1 company.
During the pendency of the suit, parties have
entered into a terms and settlement on 16th
January, 1989 and on the basis of the settlement
19this Court had disposed of the suit by passing the
following order :
“TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
Consent of the plaintiffs and defendant nos.
4, 5 and 8 herein the following order is made :
The suit is treated on the day’s list. All interim
orders passed in the suit till today are modified as
follows:
a) Sri Gunvant Roy Ojha, Shri Chimanlal Ojha,
Shri Navin Chandra Ojha, Shri Promodray Ojha
and Sriram Amritlal Ojha are appointed
members of an interim Board of Management of
Calcutta Safe Deposit Company Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as the company) with all the powers
conferred upon the Special Officers appointed
from time to time by the Hon’ble Court with
power to manage the day to day affairs of the
company jointly and with liberty to jointly
operate all the bank accounts of the company, as
well as the accounts with the United Bank of
India, High Court Branch, Calcutta, now being
operated by the Chairman, Sri J.N. Roy, they will
be entitled to remuneration & Rs. 1,000/- each
per month.
b) The Senior most member by age will be the
chairman of the interim Board of Management of
Calcutta Safe Deposit Company Ltd. and will be
entitled to an additional remuneration of Rs.
250/- per month for acting as Chairman.
c) Mr. J.N. Roy, Bar-at Law the outgoing
Chairman is discharged from further acting as of
the company. He shall hand over all the papers
and documents of the company lying with him to
the interim Board of Management and filling of
accounts by Mr. J.N. Roy is dispensed with Mr.
J.N. Roy is authorised to make the following
payments before such discharged out of the
funds of the said company.
i) The sum of Rs. 21,000/- received by him
earlier under order dated 21st February, 1988
passed in Appeal No. 510 of 1987 (Navin
Chandra Ojha Vs. Promodray Ojha & Others) to
Sri Promodray Ojha.
20
ii) The salary for the current month to the
employees of the said company along with the
additional amount of Rs. 7,000/- out of the
funds of the company.
iii) Mr. J.N. Roy shall be paid further
remuneration as the court may deem fit and
proper.
4. The interim Board of Management will take all
necessary steps to regularise the affairs of Calcutta
Safe Deposit Company Ltd.
5. All parties including the Interim Board of
Management and outgoing Chairman, Shri J.N.
Roy, Bar-at-Law to act on signed copy of the
minutes of this order on the usual undertaking.
Dated this 16th day of January, 1989.
Being aggrieved with the order passed by this
Court dt. 16.01.1989 in Suit No. 560 of 1976 an
appeal was preferred by Girish Chandra Amritlal
Ojha and Others being Appeal No. 123 of 1991.
The said appeal was disposed of by the Appellate
Court on 10.04.1992 by passing the following
order:-
“It appears that the appellant has clarified the
position while the copy on an order could not
be produce in terms of the undertaking. We
are satisfied and accept the same and
discharge the appellant of the undertaking
given to the court in this respect.
As result of our finding as above, this appeal
succeeds and the order impugned stands
modified on the following terms.
a) The appellant, Girish Chandra Ojha is
appointed a member of the Interim Board of
Management.
b) In place of deceased Gunamantaroy Ojha,
his wife Mayadebi Ojha is appointed a
member of the interim board of Management of
the company.
21
c) Other members of the Interim Board of
Management shall continue to function as
member of the same Board.
d) The Board of Management is directed to
prepare and upto date the share register of the
company within a period of 10 weeks from
this date.
e) The board of Management will lock filed the
day to day functioning of the company and
also to measure to product the interest of the
customers of the company.
f) The Bank account of the company will be
operated jointly under signature of the four of
the members of the Interim Board of
Management.
g) The other powers and authority granted to
the Interim Board of Management by an order
dated 16.1.89 not modified by this order, shall
remain in force. The appeal is, accordingly,
disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
All parties to act on the signed copy of the
operative part of the judgement on the usual
undertaking.
The Advocate for the respondent prayed for
stay of the order which is refused.”
Shri Navin Chandra Ojha, one of the son of the
deceased Amrit Lal Ojha during his life time filed
the present suit praying for the following reliefs :
“a) Declaration that, the Interim Board of
Management constituted under the Terms of
Settlement recorded by the Order dated 16th
January, 1989 is void and/or nullity;
b) Decree superseding the Interim Board of
Management constituted by the Terms of
Settlement recorded by the Order dated 16th
January, 1989 as modified by the Order dated
10th April, 1992;
c) A scheme be framed by this Hon’ble Court for
the management and administration of the
affairs of the defendant no. 1 company in such
22manner as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper;
d) Perpetual injunction restraining the
defendants and each one of them from
representing and/or holding themselves out to be
members of the Interim Board of Management or
to be the persons in the control and management
of the defendant no. 1 company;
e) Injunction restraining the defendants and/or
their men, servants and agents and each of them
from selling, alienating, disposing of and/or in
any manner dealing with and/or encumbering
any assets and properties of the defendant no. 1
company including the vacant spaces of the
building situated at 23B, Netaji Subhas Road,
Calcutta-700001;
f) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants
and each one of them from interfering with the
business affairs of the defendant no. 1 company
in any manner whatsoever;
g) A decree directing the investigation into the
affairs of the defendant no. 1 company and into
the conduct of the defendants and all
consequential orders to be made upon such
investigation being completed on such terms and
this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper;
h) A decree directing the regularization of the
affairs of the defendant company by
reconstruction of the Register of Shareholders,
convening the Annual General Meeting and filing
return with the Registrar of Companies. West
Bengal in such manner as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper;
i) A decree directing the accounts of the
defendant No. 1 to be properly audited;
j) Receiver;
k) Injunction;
l) Attachment;
m) Costs and
23
n) Further and other reliefs."
In the present suit, the father of the petitioner no.2 was the
defendant no. 2. After the death of defendant no. 2, the petitioner no.2
filed an application being G.A. No. 3117 of 2018 for impleading him as
party to the suit but this Court by an order dated 3rd December, 2018
refused the prayer of the petitioner no.2 and, the name of the defendant
no. 2, i.e. Promod Rai Ojha is deleted.
The shares of the company are primarily held by the legal
representatives of Late Amrit Lal Ojha. The father of the petitioners
Pramode Rai Ojha and Chimanlal Ojha (both since deceased), were
shareholders of the respondent company.
At the time of disposal of the previous suit being C.S. No. 560 of
1976 dated 16th January, 1989 as per the Terms and Settlement
arrived between the parties, the father of the petitioners were also
appointed as member of the Interim Board of Management of the
respondent no.1 company till their death. The father of the petitioners
were the members of the Interim Board of Management. After the death
of Gunvant Rai Ojha, his wife Maya Devi Ojha became one of the
members of the Interim Board of Management and was also made the
defendant no.4 in the present suit. After the death of Maya Devi Ojha,
her name is deleted from the suit.
Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, Learned Senior Advocate, representing the
respondent no. 5 submits that the respondent no. 5 has no objection
24
for allowing the petitioners to be the members of the Interim Board of
Management as since beginning the father of the petitioners was the
members of the Interim Board of Management.
Admittedly, the father of the petitioners were the shareholder of
the respondent no.1 Company and were also the member of the Interim
Board of Management of the company. After the death of Gunwant Rai
Ojha, the wife, namely, Maya Devi Ojha was inducted as member of the
Interim Board of Management and also made defendant in the suit.
As regard to impleading the name of the petitioner no. 2, namely,
Bhaskar Ojha in the suit and in the Interim Board of Management, this
Court finds that on previous occasion, he has filed an application
before this Court being G.A. No. 3117 of 2018 and by an order dated 3rd
December, 2018, the application of Bhaskar Ojha was dismissed and
the said order is not challenged and attained its finality, thus this
Court is not inclined to implead Bhaskar Ojha as party to the suit and
also to be the one of the members of Interim Board of Management.
As regard to the petitioner no. 1, namely, Anup Ojha, he shall be
added as the defendant no. 6 and shall also be inducted as members of
the Interim Board of Management of the defendant no.1 Company in
place of Chimanlal Ojha.
The department is directed to amend the cause title of the suit in
terms of this order within a period of two weeks from date.
25
R.V.W.O. No. 19 of 2024 is allowed. G.A. No. 1 of 2024 and
G.A. No. 2 of 2024 are accordingly disposed of.
(Krishna Rao, J.)