TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 550
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....29 September 2002, a copy whereof is contained in Annexure "B" hereto, -- 5 which stood registered in the names of the Parents of the plaintiff no.1 and the defendant no.1viz. Murari Mohan Kejriwal since deceased and Smt. Savitri Devi Kejriwal since deceased and particularised in Schedule "B" at the foot of this plaint and such vested right of the plaintiffs crystallised only upon demise of both the Parents; and ii. the Parents merely held life interest in such shares and had no right or competence to transfer or bequeath such shares to the defendant nos. 1 to 3 or any other person save and except the plaintiffs; (c) Decree declaring that all testamentary dispositions if any, made or effected by the Parents viz., Murari Mohan Kejriwal since deceased and Smt. Savitri Devi Kejriwal since deceased relating to the shares of the defendant company nos.4 and 5 standing in their names or held by them as particularized in Schedule "B" at the foot of this plaint be adjudged illegal, null and void insofar as the same relates to disposition of the said shares in favour of the defendant nos.1 to 3 or any other person and be directed to be delivered up and cancelled. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt nos. 4 and 5 and to approach the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for such relief. 4. Vide impugned order no.21 dated March 13, 2020, the trial court rejected the application of the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but allowed the application of the plaintiffs for abandonment of relief (e). 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the defendant nos. 1 and 2/petitioners contends that the entire premises of the suit pertains to the interpretation of a family arrangement in order to ascertain the respective rights of the parties to certain shares of the defendant nos. 4 and 5-Companies. By placing particular reliance on paragraphs 23 and 64 of the plaint, learned senior counsel further submits that the plaintiffs admitted in their plaint that there was a previous adjudication by the Company Law Board (CLB) on similar issues, wherein the ownership of the shares of the defendant nos. 4 and 5- Companies as well as the veracity of the transfers were considered in the light of the family arrangement. Admittedly, the plaintiffs/opposite party nos. 1 and 2 have preferred a challenge before the appropriate appellate forum against such order of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with a view to get out of the rigours of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. If, on a plain and meaningful, and not a formal, reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the plaint should be rejected. The averments of the plaint, in the present case, read as a whole meaningfully, will indicate that not only does the plaint fail to disclose any cause of action, it is also evident that the suit is patently barred by the principle of res judicata. 11. Learned senior counsel next cites Abdul Gafur and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, reported at (2008) 10 SCC 97, to lay stress on the nature and scope of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is argued that, although Section 9 provides that the Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature, suits of which cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred, are excepted. Such exceptions, carved out from the jurisdiction of the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on that the ground under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, that is, bar of law, on the principle of res judicata, would involve only a perusal of the plaint alone. If such perusal did not make it evident that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata, the issue would have to be determined at trial and the plaint could not have been rejected on that ground. 21. Prior to deciding the issues involved in the matter, it ought to be mentioned that both Section 241 and Section 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 take within their fold of the tribunal's jurisdiction regarding the conduct of the affairs of the company in a manner prejudicial or oppressive to any member of the company. 22. Section 242, while dealing with the powers of the tribunal, also contemplates within the powers of the tribunal to pass orders for the regulation of conduct of affairs of the company in future, the purchase of shares of any members of the company by other members, restrictions on the transfer or allotment of the shares of the company, etc. 23. A plain and meaningful reading of the pleadings in the plaint clearly shows that the scope of the suit falls broadly within the pur....