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

2020 Supreme(Del) 967

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

Advocates Appeared:
Ashish Mohan, Advocate, Hem Kumar, Advocate, Arjun Choudhary, Advocate, T.K. Ganju, Advocate, B. Tripathy, Advocate

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 and Order II Rule 2 - Limitation Act, 1963 - The defendant sought rejection of the plaint arguing it was barred by limitation; the Society claimed ownership over shares fraudulently transferred post the death of CBP. Court noted, 'Discovery of fraud only came to light when documents were produced in 2006', which justifies the continuation of the suit. The Society's right to sue arose upon the discovery of fraud in August 2010, as per Section 17 of the Limitation Act. (Paras 52.2, 72, 71.4, 86)

Facts of the case:
The dispute centers around 500 shares originally allotted to CBP, transferred to the Society, and then claimed to have been fraudulently disposed of. Following various legal proceedings, the Society became aware of the alleged fraud in 2010 through RTI responses, prompting this suit instituted in 2012.

Findings of Court:
The suit is prima facie within limitation, and the plaint cannot be rejected at this stage as fraud issues require full trial to determine document genuineness and legitimacy.

Issues: Whether the suit for declaratory relief regarding share ownership can proceed given claims of fraud and concealment of evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Court emphasized that limitation does not run where fraud is involved until it is discovered, supporting the Society’s right to litigate upon discovery of new evidence.

Result: The defendant's application for rejection of the plaint is dismissed.

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


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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