Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 29572
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J
AMIT LANDCON PVT LTD AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
DINESH AGRAWAL – Respondent
CR / 157 / 2016
Mr. Reashm Bhargava, Adv., Mr. Raunak Singhvi, Adv., Mr. Amol Vyas, Adv., Mr. Vibhor Vyas, Adv.
Civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain suits unless expressly barred by statute, reaffirming the appellate court's decision to restore the suit.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 115 - Companies Act, 1956 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - The appellate Court restored the suit after setting aside the trial Court's order which had returned the plaint, ruling that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit based on the Memorandum of Understanding. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that a civil court can entertain a suit unless expressly barred by statute, affirming the appellate Court's decision to restore the suit for adjudication. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a director and shareholder of a company, alleged that other directors were acting against his interests by selling plots without consent and sought a permanent injunction. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but the appellate Court restored it.
Findings of Court:
The appellate Court's decision was upheld, confirming the civil court's jurisdiction to hear the case.
Issues: The main issue was whether the civil court had jurisdiction to hear the suit regarding shareholding disputes under the Companies Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the civil court has jurisdiction unless explicitly barred, supporting the appellate Court's restoration of the suit.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
Judgment
Date Of Judgment 30/01/2024
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge No.5, Ajmer (for short ‘the appellate Court’), titled as “Dinesh Agarwal Vs. Amit Landcon Private Limited & Ors.” in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.09/2016, whereby the appellate Court while allowing the aforesaid appeal, restored the suit and set aside the judgment dated 11.02.2016 passed by the Civil Judge, Ajmer (for short ‘the trial Court’), in Civil Suit No.137/2014 whereby the trial court allowed the defendants’ application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, had returned the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC.
Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) had filed a suit for permanent injunction with the averments that the plaintiff is one of the Director and 50% shareholder in Defendant No.1-Amit Landcon Private Limited (for short ‘the company’) and the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the Directors of the said company. The defendant No.1, is a private limited company. A land situated at Village Makadwali Tehsil and District Ajmer is in the ownership of defendant No.1. The defendant No.1-Company had entered into a development agreement on 16.06.2012 with the respondent No.2 (defendant No. 4) for development of colony by plotting over the said land and it was decided that 45% plots would be sold by the developer respondent No.2 (defendant No.4) and 55% plots would be in the ownership of the defendant No.1-Company. The plaintiff had invested more than 50% of the total advance with the defendant No.1-Company. So, he had 50% share in the company. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 were in process of increasing the share holding to the detriment of the plaintiff and also wanted to appoint the other persons as Directors. They were indulged in selling the plots without informing and taking consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed a company petition under Sections 397 and 398 read with Section 402 of the Companies Act before the Company Law Board at New Delhi which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.11.2014 with liberty to file a civil suit. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the defendants had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC stating therein that the relief sought by the plaintiff is beyond the jurisdiction of the Civil Court as per provision of Section 2(11) and 10 of the Companies Act, 1956. So, civil suit was not maintainable. The trial Court vide judgment dated 11.02.2016 allowed the application filed by the defendants and returned the plaint filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC to file the same before the court of competent jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that against the said order, the plaintiff filed the civil miscellaneous appeal before the appellate Court. The appellate Court vide order dated 05.08.2016 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 11.02.2016 passed by the trial court and restored the suit for afresh adjudication.
Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that as per provision of Companies Act, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit because by way of civil suit, the plaintiff wanted to enhance his shares in the company. So, the order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the Appellate Court be set-aside and judgment dated 11.02.2016 passed by the trial court be recalled.
Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-(1) Ranjit Kumar Murmu Vs. M/s Lachmi Narayan Bhamroj & Ors. reported in AIR 2013 SC 1624;(2) Nava Samaj Limited Nagpur & Ors. Vs. Civil Judge Class 1, Rajnandgaon & Ors. reported in AIR 1966 M.P. 286; (3). Khetan Industries Private Limited & Ors. Vs.Manju Ravindraprasad Khetan reported in AIR 1995 Bombay 43; (4) Eternit Everest Limited Vs. Neelmani Bhartiya reported in 199
