TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (7) TMI 708
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sita Ram has been impleaded as Defendant No. 2 and not the other partners. A perusal of this document also discloses that the address of Shri Ved Parkash Mittal is WZ-258/3, Nangal Ray, New Delhi-110046 which is the registered office of the plaintiff. This is clear from a reading of the first document which purports to be a certified copy of the Resolution of the plaintiff company. 2. In the application for Leave to Defend, it has inter alias been pleaded as follows: "That the present suit is even otherwise an abuse of the process of this Hon'ble Court, since the same has been instituted by the plaintiff through Shri Sanjeev Mittal, a close relation of Shri Ved Prakash Mittal as stated herein above, against the defendant No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udulently and thereby tries to misuse the process of the Court is liable to be thrown out at any stage of the proceedings." 3. The response of the plaintiff in its reply to these paragraphs is as follows: " That the contents of sub para xi of para 2 of the affidavit filed by the defendants as stated are wrong and denied. It is denied that the fact that the plaintiff is the daughter of Shri Ved Prakash Mittal has any bearing on the merits of the present case, as alleged. That in reply to sub para xiii of the para 2, it is not denied that Shri Sanjeev Mittal is nephew of Shri Ved Prakash Mittal. As already submitted, so far as the plaintiff company is concerned, it is a separate legal entity and has a legal right to enfor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Suit/Plaint has been filed as a sequel to the disputes in Gupta & Co. (Defendant No. 1) between the families of Shri Sita Ram and Shri Ved Prakash. 5. It also emerges that these very parties are engrossed in arbitration proceedings before Justice K. Ramamurti (Retd.). Ved Prakash Mittal and his family members as well as the plaintiff had objected to their impleadment in those arbitration proceedings. In a detailed Order the Learned Arbitrator had held that they are necessary parties. The relief before the Arbitrator is for rendition of accounts and dissolution of partnership. This is, Therefore, not a case where Leave to Defend should be declined. 6. The moment the Court finds that an admission of material facts proving the claim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed from the Board of Directors of the plaintiff and that this has resulted in the filing of a Company Petition before the Company Law Board. I have already adverted to the certified copy of the Resolution authorising the filing of the present plaintiff. It transpires that Nitin Mittal who has authorised the filing of the Suit as a Director of the plaintiff is the son of Shri Ved Prakash Mittal, and Sanjeev Mittal who is stated to be another Director of the plaintiff company is the nephew of Shri Ved Prakash Mittal. This fortifies my prima facie belief that the transactions between the parties were incestuous. Therefore the Suit cannot be decreed without granting a full opportunity to the Defendant to establish its version of the transaction....