TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (12) TMI 299
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fs have filed this suit for a declaration to the effect that plaintiff No. 1 is a validly renominated director of defendant No. 7-company and the plaintiffs have also filed petitions : under section 408 and section 409 of the Companies Act, 1956, before the Company Law Board on April 25, 1986, on identically similar pleadings as in the above suit and the two reliefs claimed in the said petitions before the Company Law Board are identically similar to the relief claimed in the above suit and as such the proceedings in this suit be stayed till further orders under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application is opposed on behalf of the plaintiffs on the ground that section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h suit is pending in the same or any other court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court. Explanation.-The pendency of a suit in a foreign court does not preclude the courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action." This shows that in order to attract the provisions of section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it must be established that the issue in this suit and the proceedings pending before the Company Law Board are substantially the same and the Company Law Board has jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed and the two proceedings are bet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and it has also not been shown that any of his co-applicants held the same when the application was made, it is clear that the same is not maintainable." With regard to the relief under section 408 of the Companies Act, the Company Law Board has observed in paragraph 26 as follows: "With regard to the application under section 408, it may be mentioned that the applicant No. 2 has not been able to prove most of the allegations, in particular the one relating to advances of Rs. 1.64 crores said to have been given to companies concerned with Shri G. R. Agarwal. The remaining transactions have been reasonably explained by the respondents. It is also significant that the financial institutions are actively associating themselves with cond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accepted that the Company Law Board could grant the relief claimed in this suit under section 408 or section 409 of the Companies Act. That being the position, it would be difficult to accept that all the conditions precedent necessary for invoking section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure are present in the instant case and consequently it cannot be said that the provisions of section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure are attracted by this suit merely because applications under section 408 and section 409 of the Companies Act have been filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants. The mere fact that applications were filed by these very plaintiffs would not be of much consequence unless the subject-matter both before this court and befo....