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

DELHI HIGH COURT
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
Videocon Industries Limited – Appellant
Versus
Ram Raj Bhandari – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as `the Code') read with Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code, assailing the order dated 21st March 2022 passed by the learned trial Court whereby, the plaint of the Appellants herein (hereinafter referred to as `plaintiff companies') was rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code against the Respondents herein.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that the plaintiff companies held 50.21% equity shares in Tirupati Ceramics Limited (hereinafter referred to as `TCL') being 30,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each and also have a nominee Director on the Board of said company. TCL was declared as a sick company and consequently, proceedings were pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as `BIFR'). The plaintiff companies applied for impleadment as a party to such proceedings to which the Respondent No.1 and 2 through TCL opposed but the BIFR allowed the impleadment application. This order allowing impleadment was challenged by TCL before the Ap

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top