JUDGMENT :

(Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)

1. The present application under Article 227 of the constitution of India is directed against the order dated 17thApril 2021passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Howrah in Title Suit No. 254 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the Court below was pleased to reject defendant/Petitioner’s application under order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

2. The said Suit was instituted by the plaintiffs/opposite party no 2 &3 claiming inter-alia a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are entitled to have an access to and enter into the premises no 327, N.S. road, Howrah wherefrom the business is being carried on in the name of the opposite party no. 1. In the said suit, the plaintiffs/Opposites parties also claimed inter-alia a decree for declaration to the effect that the defendants are obliged to disclose to the plaintiffs, the day to day cash balances in relation to the business run in the name of the opposite party no. 1 along with a decree for discloser of accounts and a decree for perpetual injunction.

3. The defendants/petitioners had filed written statement in the said suit denying all material allegations. Long after filing the written statement the defendants/petitioner took out said application under order VII Rule 11 on the allegation that the court below had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the said suit is barred under section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013. The plaintiffs/opposite parties filed written objection against the said application and it was heard by Learned Court below in presence of both the parties and upon hearing the said prayer was rejected by the order impugned.

4. Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharjee learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the court below failed to appreciate that if there are disputes between the directors of a company, said disputes should be referred to the Tribunal and the Tribunal only has the jurisdiction to decide such dispute between the directors of the company. Learned court below was erred in holding that the plaintiffs / opposite parities can file a suit in a civil court even though the Companies Act, 2013 specifically states that in case of dispute between the directors which is a company issue, the said dispute should be tried by tribunal or a law board.

5. Mr. Bhattacharjee further submits that plaintiffs’ prayer for declaration of his right to enter into the premises of the company can very well be dealt with by the National company Law Tribunal, Kolkata bench (here in after called as NCLT) who has every power to execute the same under section 424(3) of the Companies Act 2013. He further submits that plaintiffs prayer regarding declaration of discloser of day to day cash balance, Cash book or bank reconciliation statements to enable the plaintiffs to check the day to day sells of the company can be dealt with under section 241 (1)(a) of the Companies Act read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules. The plaintiff’s prayer regarding decree for accounts for non-payment of the remuneration to the opposite party no. 2 and 3can also be dealt with under the provision of the Companies Act 2013. Section 450 of the Companies Act read with Rule 11 and Rule 146 of the NCLT rules, expressly deals with such situation and prescribes punishment for non-payment of remuneration to the members and other directors in compliance of the Article of Association of the company. Similarly the prayer regarding decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with the business as well as from the cash and turn over vested with them can be dealt with under section 242(4) of the Companies Act which deals with action and or restraining order which may have been prayed for by way of filling application under the said act. The plaintiff/opposite partys’ payer for passing decree for account commissioner and for appointment of receiver can also be dealt with rule 11