The civil court holds jurisdiction to enforce Family Settlements despite objections under the Companies Act, when irreparable harm may result from contested management actions.

ORDER

I.A.12261/2021 (by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC)

1. The suit [CS(COMM) 461/2021] has been filed by the plaintiffs for specific performance of a Family Settlement/Agreement dated 23rd January, 2020 (for short, "Mediated Agreement"), which the plaintiffs claim had been arrived at between the plaintiffs and the defendants No.2 to 7 and the defendants No.14 & 15 for the division of the joint ownership, management and control of the various companies, partnerships and entities, under the "Wings Group" arrayed as defendants No.1, 10, 11, 12 and 13.

2. Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the defendants No.1 to 15, raised two initial objections regarding the payment of the court fee as also the jurisdiction of this Court, claiming that Section 430 of the COMPANIES ACT , 2013 barred the jurisdiction of the civil court and the matter had to be heard by the National Company Law Tribunal (for short, "NCLT"). It may be noted that vide orders dated 21st September, 2021, this Court had directed the plaintiffs to file the requisite court fees on their own valuation of the suit at Rs.11 crores, which has been complied with.

3. In respect of the objection that the suit was barred under Section 430 of the COMPANIES ACT , 2013, Mr.Jayant Mehta, learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs, submitted that the suit was for the implementation of a Family Settlement and therefore, the suit was not barred. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in Dinesh Gupta and Others v. Rajesh Gupta & Others, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12387 in this regard. It was submitted that in the said case, which involved a similar issue, it was held that the civil court had jurisdiction and the relief of injunction was also granted in favour of the plaintiffs therein.

4. Though arguments were heard in I.As.12261/2021 and 12262/2021, in part, summons and notices were directed to be issued on 28th September, 2021. The written statements and the replies are yet to come on record. However, Mr.Jayant Mehta and Mr.Krishnendu Datta, learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs, prayed for interim protection till the completion of the pleadings, which was opposed by Mr.S.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the defendants No.1 to 15. It may be mentioned that the defendants No.16 and 17 are the Mediators, who worked out the said Mediated Agreement, and against whom directions have been sought for preservation of the records of the proceedings which led to the Mediated Settlement. The defendants No.16 and 17 have been represented by Mr.Krishan Kumar, Advocate, who has informed the Court and has also placed on the record the affidavits of the defendants No.16 and 17 to the effect that the said Mediated Agreement was torn and burnt on account of an incident that occurred on 3rd March, 2020, and that therefore, they could not produce the original record. However, in this regard, learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that assuming that the original Mediated Agreement/Family Settlement had been destroyed, as claimed, there were many other communications exchanged between the parties, which would have material bearing on the present matter and which are still in the custody of these defendants and which were required to be preserved and produced before the court.

5. An additional affidavit has been filed by the plaintiffs to submit that even after the suit had been filed, the defendants No.2 & 3 were still indulging in acts that were detrimental to the interests of the defendant No.1/Company, such as, changing the email