SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Cal) 344

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.
Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal and another – Appellants
Versus
Ramesh Kumar Kejriwal and others – Respondent
C.O. No.1201 of 2021
Decided on : 05-08-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Jishnu Saha, Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Mr. Sabyasachi Sen
For the Respondent: Mr. Utpal Bose, Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, Mr. Soumyajit Mishra

Headnote:

Code of Civil Procedure,1908 - Order VII - Rule 11(d) - Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 397, 398, 402, 403, 406 and 409 - Revisional application - Shares - Suit for declaration and injunction - Held, reliefs claimed in plaint, even excluding relief (e), which was sought to be abandoned by plaintiffs, pertain to declarations regarding shareholding of the defendant nos. 4 and 5 companies - Family settlement/arrangement, which was sought to be interpreted in suit, relates only to shares of parties, which is also evident from the subject matter of suit, as described in Schedules "A" and "B", which are nothing but shares in defendant nos. 4 and 5 company - Upon a plain and meaningful reading of plaint and documents referred to therein, including order of CLB, plaint is palpably barred by law as a whole, as well as by operation of principles of res judicata and issue estoppels - C.O. allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The present revisional application arises out of a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 against the petitioners and opposite party nos. 4 to 6. In the plaint, the following reliefs were claimed :

    “(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 in Schedules “A” and “B” at the foot of this plaint;

(h) Interlocutory injunction;

(i) Receiver;

(j) Attachment;

(k) Costs;

(l) Further and other reliefs.”

2. The suit property, as described in Schedules “A” and “B” of the plaint, pertains to various shares, held in the opposite party nos. 5 and 6 (defendant nos. 4 and 5 respectively in the suit)-Companies.

3. In the said suit, the defendants/petitioners filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint. The plaintiffs/opposite party nos. 1 to 3, on the other hand, took out an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Proced

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top