IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, J.
Shaheed Memorial Society (regd) & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Promila Kishore & Ors. - Respondent
Interlocutory Application No. 4570 of 2014; Civil Suit (O S) No. 1451 of 2012
Decided On : 12-10-2020
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for rejection based on limitation (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. company shares ownership transfer disputed (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. company's defense denying shareholder status (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court directs company to produce records (Para 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. extraordinary general meeting changes company board (Para 14 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. arguments regarding limitation and knowledge (Para 45 , 46) |
| 7. detecting alleged forgery and its implications (Para 52 , 64) |
| 8. principles of fraud discovery in limitation context (Para 82 , 86 , 87) |
| 9. dismissal of the application (Para 88 , 89) |
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. - Preface: -
1. This is an application filed under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [in short "CPC"] by defendant no. 8 i.e. Capital Land Builders Pvt. Ltd. [hereafter referred to as "Company"].
2. The Company seeks rejection of the plaint on the ground that it is barred by limitation and under the provisions of Order II Rule 2 read with Section 11 of the CPC.
3. The controversy both, in the suit and the captioned application, swirls around the ownership of 500 shares, which, the Company allotted to one, Ch. Bhram Prakash [hereafter referred to as "CBP"]. The Company, while not denying that 500 shares were issued to CBP and, thereafter, transferred to the plaintiff i.e. Shaheed Memorial Society [hereafter referred to as "Society"] takes the plea that, thenceforth, theses shares changed hands leaving the Society with no shares to its credit.
3.1 The Society claims otherwise and, hence, the dispute. Via this application, the Company seeks striking out of the suit albeit without a trial based on the legal provisions adverted to hereinabove.
3.2 Thus, the application is pivoted on the purported knowledge attributed to the Society concerning the alleged wrong.
4. Therefore, to appreciate the various submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their respective counsel qua this application, certain dates, events and facts are required to be noticed.
Background facts: -
5. The Company was incorporated on 19.06.1959 with an authorized capital of Rs. 1, 00,000/- divided into 1, 000 shares of Rs. 100/- each. The issue and paid-up capital was, however, restricted to Rs. 1, 500/- comprising 15 shares of Rs. 100/- each. Out of the 15 shares, 10 shares were issued to Smt. Satya Chowdhry, the wife of CBP, who was also the first Chief Minister of Delhi. The remaining 5 shares were issued to one, Shri Kishori Lal Sachdeva.
5.1 In course of time, the Company made further allotment of shares. Consequently, on 20.05.1962 the Company allotted 500 shares [as noticed above] in favour of CBP bearing distinctive numbers 61 to 560.
5.2 CBP, in turn, transferred the 500 shares allotted to him in favour of the Society. This is how the Society became the owner of the disputed 500 shares.
6. After the death of CBP on 11.08.1993, an uneasy calm prevailed between the Company and its significant [or so it thought] stakeholder i.e. the Society for about 4 years. In and about April 1997, there was a change of guard in the Society inasmuch as its secretary one, Mr. R.R. Kashyap demitted office and the same was taken up by Mr. Sidharth Chowdhry, one of the sons of the deceased CBP.
6.1 Mr. Sidharth Chowdhry''s enquiry about the original share certificates concerning shares held by the Society in the Company led him to inspect the record of the Registrar of Companies [in short "ROC"].
6.2 The inspection revealed a whole lot of deficiencies concerning compliance with the statutory provisions of the COMPANIES ACT , 1956 [in short "1956 Act"]. Inter alia, Mr. Sidharth Chowdhry discovered that the Company had not filed its annual returns and resultantly had failed to provide information about the register of members and the details of its shareholders.
6.3 This led to the institution of a company petition under Section 108 and 111(4) of the 1956 Act for rectification of the register of members. The peti
Ammonia Suppliers Corporation (P) Ltd. vs. Modern Plastic Containers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Babulal Vaktaji Shah vs. Chandabai
Chhotanben vs. Kiritbhai Thakkar
Hardesh Ores vs. Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd.
HB Stockholdings Ltd. vs. DCM Shriram Industries Ltd.
Jayantilal Patel vs Vadilal Patel
Lazarus Estate Ltd. vs. Beasley
M.D. Noorul Hoda vs. Bibi Raifunissa
Raju Jhurani vs. Germinda Pvt. Ltd.
Ramesh Desai vs. Vipin Vadilal Mehta
Razia Begum vs. Delhi Development Authority
Sargula Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal Gwalior and Ors.
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.