COMMON ORDER

The petition in CRP No. 3019 of 2022 is filed to struck off the plaint in O.S No. 61 of 2022 on the file of District Munsiff Court at Palladam and the petition in CRP No. 1714 of 2022 is filed to set aside the docket order made in I.A No. 128 of 2022 in O.S No.61 of 2022 dated 26.04.2022 on the file of District Munsiff Court, Palladam.

2. The Revision Petitioners herein are defendants 3 to 6 in the suit in O.S No.61 of 2022 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palladam, filed by the first respondent herein/ERA.Velusamy for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from any way conducting the extraordinary general body meeting on 30.04.2022 of the company or any subsequent dates without presiding the same by the chairman/Managing Director of the company and other consequential relief. On receipt of the notice, the Revision Petitioners herein filed this petition to strike off the plaint in O.S No. 61 of 2022 under Article 227 of Constitution of India, stating that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit since because issue involved in this case is that all the parties are share holders of the second respondent company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 and issued notice to conduct extraordinary General Body meeting of the general share holders, having received the same, first respondent/plaintiff herein filed a suit before the Trial Court as such is not maintainable for the reason that Section 430 of Companies Act bars the Civil Court to entertain the suit which is abuse of process of law, but the Trial court without applying its judicious mind, erroneously entertained the suit as such is liable to be set aside. Hence, they have preferred these Civil Revision Petitions.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the 1st respondent is one of shareholder of the second respondent company and the main object of the said company is to establish, develop, promote textile woven fabrics and allied activities to enable promotion and growth of weaving industry in Coimbatore District. Further, the first respondent put great efforts and concentrated in developing the activities of the company and for the subsistence of the powerloom weavers. Though he ceased to be the Director of the 2nd respondent company, the Board continued him to be a shareholder of the said company holding 6300 equity shares. Later, he retired due to his inconvenience. Now the present Director of the Board are proposed to expel some of the shareholder including the 1st respondent from the company in order to include their relatives as shareholders and they are attempting to take entire control over the second respondent company. For that, they wanted to convene the General Body Meeting without sending proper notice to the shareholders in order to achieve their hidden agenda of amending clause 36 by inserting new clause in the Article of organisation of the company numbered as 36 A, 36B and 36C, for which there is no provision in the Article of the organisation of the company or in the provision of the companies Act. Therefore, individual right of the first respondent likely to be affected by the decision of the Board. Hence, he rightly approached the Trial Court for getting relief of declaration, thereby Civil court has jurisdiction in respect of prayer claimed in the suit. Hence, he prayed to dismiss these Civil Revision Petitions. Further he would also submit that if the suit is barred under law, the revision petitioner should have filed the petition before the Civil Court by invoking Order 7 Rule 11 to reject the plaint, instead of that they filed these petitions under Article 226 of Constitution of India as such is not maintainable and to substantiate his claim he relied the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr.K.Natarajan &

Others Vs. K.Krishna Perumal:

4. The contention of the petitioners squarely fall within the ambit of Sub-Clause (b). Hence, the petitioner can very well file a petition under