In March, 1988 the respondents filed an interim application before the learned Subordinate Judge for revoking the leave granted inter alia on the ground that the respondents had number been given any opportunity to be heard before leave was granted.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.1989 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. Nos.
Padmanabhan, P.N. Ramalingam and A.T.M. Sampath for the Appellants.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
4890 91 of 1990.
He took the view that an analysis of the provisions of section 92 of the Code shows that in order to institute a representative suit as companytemplated in the said section two or more persons must have an interest in the trust and they should have obtained the leave of the companyrt before they institute the suit.
Parasaran, S. Balakrishnan and Ms. Revati for the Respondents.
These two appeals are filed by Special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Madras in Revision Petitions Nos.
The respondents then pre ferred a Civil Revision Petition in the Madras High Court which has been allowed by a judgment delivered by learned Single Judge.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA, J. Special Leave granted.
On the same day on which the suit was filed by lodging the plaint in companyrt an application was made praying for leave to institute the suit under section 92 of the Code.
517 5 18 of 1989.
Counsel heard.
Without issuing any numberice to the respondents, the said companyrt granted leave by passing an order reading permitted and issued summons to the respondents.
