Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J.
Radical Arc Ventures Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Crl.M.C. 2872 of 2022
Decided On : 28-10-2022
The corporate entity is distinct from its shareholders in domestic violence cases; ownership of company assets does not grant rights to individuals in personal disputes.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 and 29 - Corporate ownership - Petition filed to set aside orders permitting possession of a corporate vehicle by a spouse in a matrimonial suit. The court ruled the company is not a party to the domestic relationship. The retainment of the asset by the spouse lacks legal standing as it doesn't fall within the statutory definition of respondent or aggrieved person per the Act. The orders for retention of the asset were set aside, affirming the clarity of legal entities in relation to domestic violence proceedings. (Paras 13, 16, 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a company, filed petitions regarding an Audi car at the center of a matrimonial dispute between respondents. The car was initially with the husband but was claimed by the wife under orders of the Mahila Court.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that as the petitioner company was a legal entity separate from its shareholders, it could not be deprived of its property due to a domestic dispute. The orders in question were set aside, and the car was to be returned to the company.
Issues: The main questions addressed were the maintainability of the petition by the company in a domestic violence context and the rights of possession concerning corporate assets.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that ownership of a corporate asset does not transform into a personal claim under domestic violence law when the claim does not involve an aggrieved person as defined by the Act. This underscores the importance of distinguishing between personal and corporate rights in family law disputes.
Result: Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the matrimonial dispute and related orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments regarding petitioner's rights and legal standing. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's reasoning on maintainability and corporate veil. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. determination of car's ownership and petition allowance. (Para 22) |
| 5. final ruling and order on the petition. (Para 23) |
JUDGMENT
Jasmeet Singh, J. This is a petition filed seeking setting aside of the orders dated 26.07.2021, 15.09.2021 and 18.10.2021 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court-02, South East, Saket District Court, Delhi in CT No. 910/2021 titled `Shikha Kanwar v. Rajat Kanwar' qua car bearing registration No. HP12M 1248 make Audi Q7.
2. The present petition has its genesis in a matrimonial dispute between respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 who are wife and husband respectively. Admittedly, petitioner is a company of which 75% shares were held by respondent No.3. The petitioner company is engaged in business of construction, real estate. The petitioner is the registered owner of car bearing registration No. HP12M 1248 make Audi Q7 (hereinafter referred to as `Audi car'). As per the petition, the company had given the said car to respondent No. 3 for his official use and was being used by respondent No.3.
3. It is further stated that the said car was returned by respondent No.3 to petitioner at the time of his resignation, i.e. 02.07.2021. On 19.07.2021, respondent No. 2 took the car from the possession of the petitioner having original title documents of 24 properties of the clients of the petitioner. Since the petitioner was not aware of the whereabouts of the Audi car, the petitioner filed a complaint at Sector 49, Noida Police Station with respect to the theft of the Audi car.
4. On 01.08.2021, FIR No. 861/2021 was registered at Sector 49, Noida Police Station, under Section 379 IPC qua theft of the Audi car and original title documents of the 24 properties.
5. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 2 initiated proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against respondent No. 3 before learned MM, Mahila Court-02, South East, Saket District Court, Delhi being CT No. 910/2021 titled `Shikha Kanwar v. Rajat Kanwar'.
6. The petitioner was informed subsequently that the car is in the power and possession of respondent No. 2 and her possession is protected by the order of learned MM Mahila Court.
7. On 26.07.2021, respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 were referred to mediation. On the said date, the counsel for the respondent No.3 had made a statement that the Audi car must be returned by the respondent No. 2 and in place the respondent No. 3 would provide respondent No. 2 a BMW car. However, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 later retracted from the said statement regarding providing of a BMW car.
8. On 15.09.2021, the learned MM Court directed that the said Audi car will remain in power and possession of the respondent No. 2 till the matter is heard on merits. On 18.10.2021, the application filed by petitioner company seeking review of the order dated 15.09.2021 was dismissed. The learned MM Court was of the view that there is no power of review under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. In addition, the learned MM Court was of the view that assuming that the powers of Section 25 (2) of the Domestic Violence Act permitted alteration/modification of the order, the petitioner, i.e. the intervener before the learned MM Court had no locus standi to move the application as it was neither an aggrieved person within the meaning of the Act nor the respondent. Lastly, the learned MM Court was of view that the respondent No. 3 was a Director of the petitioner company with 75% shares. The respondent No. 3 resigned from petitioner company only after the order of 26.07.2021 had been passed. Hence, the learned MM dismissed the application filed on 04.10.20
