CR-5643-2016 (O&M)

Page 1 of 4

221

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CR-5643-2016 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 13.02.2023

Jiwan Mehta

.…Petitioner

Versus

Sanjeev Kumar and others

….Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Present:

Ms. Payel Mehta, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Gorav Kathuria, Advocate

for respondent No.1.

Mr. Hamid Hassan, Advocate

for respondent No.3.

Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate

for respondent No.4.

*****

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)

Petition herein is for setting aside order dated 24.05.2016

(Annexure P-1) passed by the Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Panchkula

rejecting application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by defendant No.3-

petitioner herein.

2.

Succinct facts first, as pleaded in the revision petition.

2.1.

Respondent No.1 had filed a civil suit for specific performance of

Agreement to Sell dated 12.06.2012 executed between defendant No.1-

respodnent No.2 herein and the respondent No.1 in respect of 2160 shares

ASHISH

2023.02.24 16:22

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

CR-5643-2016 (O&M)

Page 2 of 4

holding in M/s Hateshwari Paper Moulding Private Ltd. and 1/5^th share in suit

property (i.e. land measuring 15 kanals 9 marlas at Village Mouli, District

Panchkula) and for permanent prohibitory injunction qua the said share of

land. Upon notice the petitioner appeared and objected the maintainability of

the civil suit and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. However,

vide impugned order dated 24.05.2016 the same was dismissed. Hence, the

present revision petition.

5.

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties

and gone through the record. I am of the view that the Ld. Trial Court having

once observed that the dispute in the civil suit pertains to the sale purchase

and subsequent transfer of 2160 shares which are claimed to have been

agreed to be sold by way of agreement to the plaintiff (respondent No.1

herein), then the same clearly ought to have been adjudicated under the

provisions of the Companies Act. The Ld. Trial Court was fully conscious of

the same as is reflected from the following part of the impugned order:-

“xxxx

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx

In the present suit the plaintiff has sought specific performance of

agreement to sell dated 12.6.2012 and also sought declaration to

the effect that share transfer from dated 19.06.12 and subsequent

entries of share transfer are illegal, null and void and further

seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from

alienating or charging nature of the shares in question and

further, restraining the defendants from interfering into peaceful

over the suit land. Thus, several reliefs have been claimed by the

plaintiff in the present suit and out of them, one in regarding

permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering

in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. Section 430 of the

companies act, 2013 specifically states that no civil court shall

have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of

any matter which the tribunal or the appellate tribunal is

empowered to determine by or under this act or any other law for

ASHISH

2023.02.24 16:22

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

CR-5643-2016 (O&M)

Page 3 of 4

the time being in force and no injunction shall be granted by any

court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be

taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this act

or any other law for the time being in force by the Tribunal or the

Appellant Tribunal.

Meaning thereby, the Civil Court cannot grant injunction in

respect of any action taken or to be taken by the Tribunal in

pursuance of any power conferred under this act and as such, in

case