8 was warned by the duty officer of Bandra Police Station.
The drivers of Accused No.
1 to 11.
Indisputably, the dispute arose in regard to companystruction tarring of the road by reason whereof, the first respondent might have faced difficulties in ingress and egress to and from his house for a short while.
11, came on site along with road roller and dumpers, and began putting hot sticky tar on the road Gardha Villa, I companyplaint to the Bandra Police Station Accused No.
The access from the hill road to Gardha Villa is only access road to Gardha Villa because of putting hot sticky tar on the existing road on hill road and Gardha Villa I and my brother wrongfully restrained from going to Gardha Villa for several hours.
Ultimately he manage to release the driver.
However, after one month the first respondent again filed a private companyplaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra in regard to the same incident wherein number only the original accused were made parties but also appellants were made accused Nos.
However, evidently, first respondent went to the Police Station and made a companyplaint thereabout.
8 assured to stop the work, he again, started the tarring of the access to Gardha Villa I again went to Police Station.
8, 9 along with workers of Accused No.
Appellants were summoned as accused by an order dated 06.08.1999.
And companyplained against it.
1 to A verification statement was made by the first respondent on 6.8.1999, the relevant portion whereof reads as under On 06.06.1999 at about 10.00 a.m. Accused No.
And were warned that they will booked for wrongly red trained if they will companytinuing the tarring the access road.
7 to 10 were arrested for wrongful restrained U Sec.
8 and 10 along with Accused No.11, were companytinuing the work, I lodged my companyplaint at about 320 p.m. on 06.06.1999 and my FIR was register under C.R. No.
Accused Nos.
It has its registered office at 5/6, Jer Mansion, First Floor, W.P. Varde Marg, Tuner Road, Bandra West in the town of Mumbai.
1 Accused No.
6 to companystruct the road.
Appellant No.
They were, however, granted bail.
It discloses disputes between the parties as also various proceedings initiated against the Company by the Bombay Municipal Corporation.
Accused Nos.
341 IPC, 34 IPC and was subsequently released on bail.
Before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan an application under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short, the Code was preferred by the first respondent since both the cases arose out of the same incident cause of action, which by an order dated 6.5.2004 was allowed.
The Complaint Petition is a detailed one.
I found that the work was still companytinuing and accused No.
They were arrested.
Appellants, however, was granted liberty to raise all companytentions at the trial in terms of Section 255 of the Code.
Accused Nos.
1 to 5 were managing the affairs of the Company and had instigated accused No.
The work was stopped for some time, but allegedly the same was started again.
6 is an Architect.
It is stated that the said application for amendment was dismissed.
They were said to be belonging to Hormasji Dinshawji Gharda since deceased.
An application for amendment of the plaint was filed in the said suit on 17.4.1998.
An appeal allegedly was preferred thereagainst.
1 to 5 manage the affairs of Gardha Chemicals had instigated accused No.
Though Accused No.
Gharda House being an old building was required to be demolished and reconstructed.
Bombay Municipal Corporation also issued a stop work numberice dated 25.7.1998, which was said to have been withdrawn on 21.5.1999.
The Company is said to be the owner of the property.
It is stated that Appellants 1 and 3 are numberlonger associated with the Company.
I am producing the companyy of the FIR lodged the Bandra P. Stn.
Appellants filed an application under Section 482 of the Code which by reason of the impugned judgment and order dated 16.6.2005 has been dismissed, opining that the same was grossly delayed and the allegations made in the Complaint Petition in regard to accused Nos.
Gharda Villa, in which the first respondent resides and the premises known as Khaiber Property are adjacent to each other.
11 came on site and requested him to assist him to release the driver, which I refused to do so.
Several proceedings, however, were initiated in respect of the said building by the Bombay Municipal Corporation.
Allegations at that point of time were companyfined to Accused Nos.
8, 9 and 11 at the first stage and to Accused Nos.
1 to 5 and 12, if proved would amount to companymission of a criminal offence.
Accused No.
8, 10 and 11 at the second stage.
1 is the Chairman cum Managing Director of the said Company.
A charge sheet was also filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra in that case.
Hence my companyplaint against accused No.
7 and 8 were called to Police Station.
However, first respondent again went to Police Station to lodge a first information report after he allegedly found that the work had been companytinuing.
An interim relief prayed for by the first respondent in the said appeal is also said to have been rejected.
7 and 8 were called to Police Station.
My aged parents who were in the house, also restrained for going out the road.
In regard to the proposed action on the part of the Company to demolish and reconstruct the said building, the first respondent had initiated various proceedings.
Appellants 2 to 5 are the Directors thereof and the Appellant No.
7 and 8 assured to duty officer that they will stop the work, when I returned from Police Station.
257/1999 and accused Nos.
Relying on or on the basis of the allegations made in the Complaint Petition as also the said Verification Statement, companynizance of an offence under Section 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for short, the IPC was taken.
7 to 10 were workers of the Company.
It is in the aforementioned backdrop of events, the statement made by the first respondent that accused Nos.
M s Gharda Chemicals Limited is a deemed public limited companypany registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
Father of the first respondent filed a suit in the year 1978 in his capacity as a tenant against the predecessor in interest of the Company.
B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
When repair work on the road upon removing the debris lying on a portion of the land was started, a first information report was lodged by the first respondent before Bandra Police Station against the officers of the Company and the representatives of the Contractor.
First respondent is a practising advocate.
Accused Nos.
He is a resident of Gharda Villa, 1st Floor, situated at 48, Hill Road, Bandra West , Mumbai.
Appellants are, thus, before us.
11 was also detained by Bandra Police Station.
To stop the work and get the clarification from the Small Causes Court.
At about 500 p.m., Accused No.
