181/97, against the respondents claiming following amongst other reliefs a a decree for declaration that defendant number1 is number a fit and proper person to companytinue as trustee of Modipon Limited Senior Executive Welfare Trust b a decree directing that defendant number1 is removed from such office by the orders of this companyrt c a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant number1 and or his servants, agents and assignees from operating the saving account No.9089 opened in Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Friends Colony, New Delhi d a decree by way of mandatory injunction restraining defendant number1 from depositing the dividend bonus shares received in future from GPI in the account opened by him with defendant number6 at Delhi and simultaneously directing him to forward the same to the secretary of the trust e a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff to direct defendant number1 to hand over the relevant Bonus Share Certificate in account to 9089 and dividend amounting to Rs.
The application was filed under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. Respondent No.1 filed reply to the said application.
The appellants filed their rejoinder to the reply of respondent No.1 to the said application.
The said Trust was formed for the general benefit of employees employed in the Fibre Division only of Modipon Limited and the purpose was to provide benefits to such employees and dependent members of their families particularly for the purposes of giving them education, medical relief, facilities for sports, cultural and other activities on sound, permanent and organized basis.
It is pertinent to mention that since 1991 92, even the dividend declared on GPI shares are being solely appropriated by the defendant number1 to the exclusion of the beneficiaries.
If the said GPI shares were to be sold and then invested in Government Bonds Securities the investment would yield a minimum return of 10 to 12 per annum .
Similarly, the appellants sought amendment in paragraph 15 and want to incorporate relief of mandatory injunction as per prayer b 1 to be read as under RELIEF VALUATION FOR COURT FEE COURT FEE THE PURPOSES OF PAID JURISDICTION For the Relief of Mandatory Injunction Rs.
Aggrieved against the said order, the above civil appeals have been filed.
The Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.1 and dismissed the application of the appellants for amendment of plaint on the ground that the proposed amendment introduces a totally different, new and inconsistent case and that the application does number appear to have been made in good faith and at the instance of some one behind the curtain.
The learned single Judge of the High Court, vide his order dated 31.08.1994, allowed the application of the appellant seeking relief of amendment to the plaint.
130.00 Rs.130.00 Rs.13.00 as per prayer b 1 herein Pass a decree of Mandatory injunction directing the defendants to sell the shares of GPI held by the Trust and use the sale proceeds thereof for the benefit of the beneficiaries.
It is stated that GPI declared a dividend of Rs 7/ per share in the year 1996 1997 when the market price of the shares was between Rs.
On 23.09.1998, the appellants filed an application being I.A. No.
35/2000 whereby the learned single Judge had allowed the application of the appellants seeking the relief of amendment of plaint.
Written statement was filed on behalf of respondent Nos.
Respondent No.1 herein filed First Appeal against the order of the learned single Judge which was registered as FAO OS No.
15,64,434.00, or any other amount of GPI to the secretary of the Trust , i.e. defendant number5 herein f pass such other order or further order orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
250 300/ per share which means a mere 2.5 return on the investment per annum.
