TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 1195
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... suit in O.S. No. 10 of 2005 and or in the alternative permanently stay the company petition till the disposal of the civil suit pending before the Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur. Shri R. Sankaranarayanan, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the applicant submitted that the second respondent herein is the petitioner in the above company petition filed under sections 397 and 398 of the Act alleging various acts of oppression and mismanagement in the affairs of the first respondent-company and it is pending before this Bench. It is submitted that the second respondent herein made the following prayers in the said company petition: Directing the company to issue share certificates in respect of 1,25,000 equity shares issued and allotted to the petitioner and in respect of 100 preference shares issued by the company. Directing that the 50 per cent. share in the land, building and machinery situated at No. 113, T.P. Mills Road, Cotton Market, Post Box No. 117, Rajapalayam-626 117 be divided in such manner as may be determined by an expert appointed for this purpose and be vested in the second respondent or an entity nominated by him in this regard. Cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o give any final decision on that issue which is required to be decided by a competent civil court. 3. It is respectfully submitted that the civil suits referred to by the hon'ble High Court in its order dated October 11, 2006, deal with not only the properties and shares of M/s. Shree Bhaarathi Cotton Mills P. Ltd., but also the properties and shares of the first respondent-company herein. The applicant craves leave of this hon'ble Bench to treat the order dated October 11, 2006 and the copies of the civil suits in O.S. No. 10 of 2005 filed by the applicant herein before the Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur to form part and parcel of this application. 4. It is respectfully submitted that the applicant herein, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs before the civil court in O.S. No. 10 of 2005: (a) To declare that the gift deeds registered on October 24, 2002 Reg. No. 3471/02, October 24, 2002 Reg. No. 3472/02, December 12, 2002 Reg. No. 4079/02, registered on February 26, 2004, Reg. No. 784/2004 executed by the first defendant in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 5 are null and void and will not bind the plaintiffs share in the suit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted that the issues raised in the main petition are also substantial issue in the civil suit previously instituted and it clearly falls within the scope of section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Therefore, the petition which is filed subsequent to the suit already filed, has to be stayed till the disposal of the said suit by the civil court. In support of his case, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions: (i) C.A. No. 248 of 2007 in C.P. No. 100 of 2007, dated November 1, 2008 (CLB, Chennai) in the matter of (Shailesh Kumar v. Victor Bruzo), paragraph 9. (ii) [2010] 155 Comp Cas 572(CLB) in the matter of (Akshaya Textiles Ltd. v. S. Martin), paragraph 11. (iii) [2005] 127 CC 687 (CLB) in the matter of (Laxmi Narayan Rawat v. R.T. Udyog P. Ltd.), paragraph 8. (iv) [2000] 102 CC 292 (CLB) in the matter of (Guljarilal Kanoria v. Loptchu Tea Co. Ltd.). (v) [2008] 142 CC 552 (CLB) in the matter of (Sundeep Gupta v. Indian Hardware Industries Ltd.). 8. Shri R. Murari, learned senior counsel appeared on behalf of the second respondent herein and submitted that the present application, sought to be filed under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he first respondent-company, which has been deadlocked and in respect of which reliefs have been sought in the petition with a view to resolve such deadlock. It is pertinent to point out that even as set out in the application, the reliefs in the above petition relate to the immovable property of the company and the manner of separation thereof and not merely to the shares of the company. Even so, the reliefs sought for are for the purposes of resolving the deadlock. It is further submitted that this hon'ble Board is not confined to the reliefs sought for in the petition and the settled position is that this hon'ble Board has the power to grant whatever reliefs it deems fit in order to put an end to the oppression complained of and is not necessarily confined to the reliefs that have been prayed for in the petition. It is also submitted that further references to the matters set out in the plaint and the reliefs sought for therein are of no consequence whatsoever. The matters in the petition related to the acts of oppression and mismanagement of the applicant in relation to the first respondent-company which obviously does not and cannot form the subject matter of the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner was his father and was in advanced age. The second respondent (applicant herein) also purported to file a suit for challenging the partition entered into by him with the petitioner. The filing of the suit has created a further acrimony between the petitioner and the second respondent leading to a complete breakdown of their relationship". The second respondent herein has narrated various instances with regard to the deadlock and detriment caused to the first respondent-company at the behest of the applicant herein in the company petition. It is pertinent to mention the relevant averment to this issue as made at paragraph 17 of the company petition. "The second respondent further sought to raise irrelevant contentions, completely out of context that the petitioner is not the managing director of the company any longer and that his stake in the company is still not conclusive as it is the subject matter of the pending civil proceedings and that the petitioner's assumptions that the second respondent's shareholding is only 50 per cent. is wrong". From a perusal of the entire company petition it is observed that the second respondent herein, apart from ment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and direct the applicant to transfer his entire shareholding in respect of respondent No. 1 company to the second respondent herein. Per contra, the applicant contended that he filed civil suit being O. S. No. 10 of 2005 before the Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar District, Srivilliputhur, inter alia, in respect of the shares and the property of the first respondent-company also. From the perusal of the plaint in O.S. No. 10 of 2005 it is evident that the applicant arrayed the second respondent herein as the first defendant in that suit and the first respondent herein as the seventh defendant in that suit. Therefore, the parties in the present company petition are parties before the civil court. Admittedly, the suit filed by the applicant herein is prior in point of time. The applicant, being plaintiff in the above suit, mentioned various facts in vernacular (Tamil) language. However, some of the averments were also made in English language. At internal pages 8 and 9 of the plaint, it is mentioned that the properties and shares of Shree Bhaarathi Cotton Mills P. Ltd., are categorised as C schedule properties. The first respondent herein, i.e., M/s. Jayabharath Textiles P. Lt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....004, Reg. No. 784/04, executed by the first defendant in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 5 are null and void and will not bind the plaintiffs share in the suit property. (b) To partition plaintiffs half share in plaint A schedule properties by metes and bounds and put the plaintiff in possession of his half share. (c) Direct the defendants to pay costs of this suit, and (d) For such other relief or reliefs as this hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. The applicant has enclosed the schedule of properties, i.e., A, B and C along with the plaint. Schedule A consists of three items. Paragraph 7 of item (iii) is in relation to the movable and immovable properties, and shares of respondent No. 1 company. A part of paragraph 7 is mentioned in English language that "1,25,000 shares out of 2,50,000 having its registered office at 133, T.P. Mills Road, Cotton Market, Rajapalayam, properties, lands, buildings and factories premises and all machinery and equipments, stocks, investments and all assets" shall be decreed in favour of the plaintiff. It is to note that the said prayer is similar to the relief sought by the second respondent her....