IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
Ramesh Kumar Kejriwal And Others - Appellant
Versus
Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal And Others - Respondent
R.V.W. No. 92 of 2021, C.O. No.1201 of 2021
Decided On : 15-02-2022
res judicata - Civil Suit - Code of Civil Procedure - [Order XXIII Rule 1, Order VI Rule 17, Order VII Rule 11] - The court discussed the principle of res judicata and issue estoppel in the context of a civil suit seeking declaration of title to shares in a company. The court held that the suit was barred by res judicata and issue estoppel, and that the jurisdiction to decide the matter lay with the Company Law Board (now NCLT). The court also rejected the review application, stating that the arguments raised pertained to arguable questions of law and fact, beyond the scope of the review jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The review application sought to challenge a judgment and order that allowed a civil suit, declaring that the defendants held shares in a company as trustees for the plaintiffs, to be set aside. The suit also sought various other reliefs related to the shares and assets of the company.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was barred by res judicata and issue estoppel, and that the jurisdiction to decide the matter lay with the Company Law Board (now NCLT). The court also rejected the review application, stating that the arguments raised pertained to arguable questions of law and fact, beyond the scope of the review jurisdiction.
Issues: The issues involved the application of res judicata and issue estoppel in the context of the civil suit, as well as the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board (now NCLT) to decide the matter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was barred by res judicata and issue estoppel, and that the jurisdiction to decide the matter lay with the Company Law Board (now NCLT). The court also rejected the review application, stating that the arguments raised pertained to arguable questions of law and fact, beyond the scope of the review jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The review application was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - The present application has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated august 5, 2021 passed in C.O. No.1201 No. of 2021, which was passed in presence of counsel for the revisionist-petitioners and opposite party no.1 (present review applicant no.1).
2. By the order under review, C.O. No.1201 was allowed on contest, thereby setting aside the order impugned therein and rejecting the plaint of Title Suit No.13 of 2019 pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), at Uluberia, District Court, Howrah. Consequentially, the application filed by the review applicants, who were the plaintiffs in the suit, under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rendered infructuous and also dismissed.
3. The review applicants, who were opposite parties in the revisional application, had filed a suit bearing Title Suit No.13 of 2019 following Reliefs:
'(a) Decree declaring that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 are holding the shares in the defendant nos. 4 and 5 as particularised in Schedule 'a' at the foot of this plaint as trustees for the benefit of the plaintiffs and the said defendants have no beneficial interest over such shares;
(b) Decree declaring that in view of the family settlement made in the Kejriwal family and recorded in the Memorandum dated 29 September 2002, a copy whereof is contained in annexure 'B' hereto, --
5 which stood registered in the names of the Parents of the plaintiff no.1 and the defendant no.1viz. Murari Mohan Kejriwal since deceased and Smt. Savitri Devi Kejriwal since deceased and particularised in Schedule 'B' at the foot of this plaint and such vested right of the plaintiffs crystallised only upon demise of both the Parents; and
ii. the Parents merely held life interest in such shares and had no right or competence to transfer or bequeath such shares to the defendant nos. 1 to 3 or any other person save and except the plaintiffs;
(c) Decree declaring that all testamentary dispositions if any, made or effected by the Parents viz., Murari Mohan Kejriwal since deceased and Smt. Savitri Devi Kejriwal since deceased relating to the shares of the defendant company nos.4 and 5 standing in their names or held by them as particularized in Schedule 'B' at the foot of this plaint be adjudged illegal, null and void insofar as the same relates to disposition of the said shares in favour of the defendant nos.1 to 3 or any other person and be directed to be delivered up and cancelled.
(d) Mandatory Decree directing the defendant nos. 1 and 2 to transfer and deliver their entire shareholding in the defendant company nos. 4 and 5 as particularised in schedule 'a' at the foot of this plaint to the plaintiffs in consideration of the said family settlement made in the Kejriwal family;
(e) Decree be passed for rectification of the Register of Members of the defendant company nos. 4 and 5 by deleting the names of the Parents viz., Murari Mohan Kejriwal since deceased and Smt. Savitri Devi Kejriwal since deceased and the defendant nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the shares stated in Schedule 'a' and 'B' at the foot of this plaint and substituting the names of the plaintiffs as the joint owners of such shares;
(f) Decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 from exercising any right standing in their names or in the names of the Parents viz., Murari Mohan Kejriwal since deceased and Smt. Savitri Devi Kejriwal since deceased in the defendant company nos. 4 and 5 and particularised in Schedules 'a' and 'B' at the foot of this plaint;
(g) Decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 from selling, transferring, encumbering, pledging or in any way dealing with any share in the defendant company nos. 4 and 5 standing in their names of held by them or standing in the names of the Parents viz., Murari Mohan Kejriwal since deceased and Smt. Savitri Devi Kejriwal since deceased in the defendant company nos. 4 and 5 and particularised
K. Muthuswami Gounder vs. N. Palaniappa Gounder (1998) 7 SCC 327
Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad and others vs. Shatadevi P. Gaekwad (Dead) through LRS. and others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of res judicata and issue estoppel in the context of a civil suit, as well as the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board (now NCLT) ....
An application for plaint rejection under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC only evaluates the plaint's contents without considering the defendant's defense. Res judicata principles need comprehensive analysis bey....
The Court ruled that the application under the Companies Act was maintainable despite previous findings, emphasizing proper compliance with ownership criteria for governance disputes.
A court must examine pleadings from both current and previous suits to determine if resjudicata applies, ensuring all relevant issues are considered.
The Companies Act, 2013 bars civil court jurisdiction in company disputes, mandating adjudication by the National Company Law Tribunal.
The suit for enforcement of a shareholder's right under a Board Resolution, based on a family settlement, is not maintainable in a civil court and falls within the jurisdiction of the NCLT as per the....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.