Advocates:
['MASOOD SHAREEF', '', 'AADIL ANWAR J MIRZA', 'S V BHUTADA', 'YASH MAHESHWARI AND R S SHIRPURKAR', '', 'SHARANG A SONAK']

38- CRA 14.2021 Judgment.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 14 OF 2021

1) Vidarbha Ceramics Private

Limited, a company registered

under the Companies Act, 1956

having its registered office at 5,

Temple Road, Civil Lines,

Nagpur – 440010

2) Adarsh Shriratan Daga,

aged about 52 years,

occ. Business, resident of 5,

Temple Road, Civil Lines,

Nagpur – 440010

.. Applicants

Versus

1) Anupama Daga d/o Vivek

Daga, aged about 23 years,

occ. Student, resident of 1831,

3^rd Floor, ATS Green Village,

T-18, Sector 93-A,

Expressway, NOIDA

2) Maharashtra Industrial

Development Corporation,

Head Office : “Udyog Sarathi”,

Marol Industrial Area,

Mahakali Caves Road,

Andheri(East),Mumbai-400093

Regional office, DIC Bldg.,

5^th Floor, Civil Lines,

Nagpur – 440001, through its

Regional Officer.

.. Respondents

PAGE 1 OF 17

38- CRA 14.2021 Judgment.odt

Mr. Masood Shareef, Advocate for applicants.

Mr.S.V.Bhutada with Mr.Yash Maheshwari and Mrs.R.S.Sirpurkar,

Advocates for respondent No.1.

Mr. A. D. Sonak, Advocate for respondent No.2.

CORAM :

MANISH PITALE, J.

DATED

:

23^rd June, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT

Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing

and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was

proper.

(2)

The Civil Revision Application is heard finally with

the consent of learned counsel for the rival parties.

(3)

By this revision application, the applicants (original

defendants No.2 and 3) have challenged order dated 20/03/2021,

passed by the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur,

whereby, an application (Exh.10) for rejection of plaint filed under

Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has been

rejected.

(4)

The applicants have approached this Court with the

basic contention that in the present case, the respondent No.1 (original

PAGE 2 OF 17

38- CRA 14.2021 Judgment.odt

plaintiff) has indulged in clever drafting and creating of an illusion of

cause of action, in order to claim that the suit for injunction filed by

her is maintainable before the Court below.

(5)

According to the applicants, the reliefs claimed by

the respondent No.1 are to be agitated before the National Company

Law Tribunal (NCLT) under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013

and that in fact, such a petition filed prior in point of time to the

aforesaid suit before the NCLT is pending consideration. It is

contended in the application for rejection of plaint that the effect of

Section 430 of the Companies Act, is that the suit filed by the

respondent No.1 is barred by law and that therefore, the plaint ought

to be rejected.

(6)

The Court below in the impugned order has taken

note of the fact that the aforesaid petition filed before the NCLT on

behalf of the respondent No.1 is indeed pending and yet the

application filed by the applicants herein has been rejected on the

ground that the parties in the two proceedings i.e. the suit filed before

the Court below and the petition pending before the NCLT are

different in nature and the prayers are also different.

PAGE 3 OF 17

38- CRA 14.2021 Judgment.odt

(7)

Mr. Masood Shareef, learned counsel appearing for

the applicants submits that the Court below committed a grave error in

passing the impugned order and that the observations made therein

are not borne out by the material on record and the admitted facts that

emerge from the record.

(8)

The learned counsel for the applicants invited

attention of this Court to the contents of the company petition dated

02/01/2021, filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 herein. It was

submitted that the grievance of the respondent No.1 pertains to

alleged mismanagement of a trust fund created for the benefit of the

respondent No.1 in the backdrop of a matrimonial dispute between her

parents. The trust fund was allegedly created, so that the maintenance