TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 1508
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claration has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs on the premise that the holding of defendant No. 1 in the defendant No. 2 company has been diluted to 20.54% and subsequently to 15.88% in violation of the order dated 23.08.2013 passed by this Court in Arbitration Petition 362/2013 (renumbered as Arb. Appeal No. 14/2015). Furthermore, defendant No. 2 allotted shares in favour of defendant Nos. 7 and 8, resulting in further dilution of holding of defendant Nos. 1 and 4 in the defendant No. 2 company. The defendant No. 3 has acquired the shareholding in defendant No. 2 acting through its subsidiaries i.e. defendant Nos. 7 and 8, which is stated to be in breach of order dated 23.08.2013 passed by this Court. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 and M/s BPL Display Devices Ltd. availed certain bill discounting facilities from the plaintiff by and under 'Bill Discounting Agreements/ Sanction Letters' (in short 'Agreements") dated 27.12.2002 and 11.06.2003. In all, sum of Rs. 13,23,23,523/- was disbursed to the defendant No. 1 by the plaintiff. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that though huge amounts became due and payable by defendan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n till 08.08.2013, when the Arbitral Tribunal modified the order dated 04.12.2012 only to the extent of vacating the stay operating against the healthcare business of defendant No.1, upon acceptance of security furnished by defendant No. 2. 5. Subsequently, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff vide press release dated 13.05.2013 issued by defendant No. 1 that defendant No. 1 in violation of the order dated 04.12.2012 passed by this Court, had proposed to transfer 49% of shareholding of defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 3 herein pursuant to Resolutions passed by the Board of Directors of defendant No. 1. Thus, plaintiff issued various intimations inter alia to defendant No. 3 that the said proposed transfer of shares were in violation of the orders dated 12.09.2012, 04.12.2012 and 31.05.2013 passed by this Court. However, defendant No. 3 proceeded with the transaction for acquisition of 49% of shareholding of defendant No. 1. 6. Thereafter, two applications came to be filed on behalf of the plaintiff before the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. As the Arbitral Tribunal directed the defendant No. 1 to furnish additional security and accepted the security alread....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ious acts and omissions, which has resulted in dilution of the shareholding of defendant No. 1 in defendant No. 2. 9. It is further submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has now learnt that defendant No. 2 had allotted 92,24,012 equity shares and 23,06,003 equity shares in favour of defendant Nos. 7 and 8, respectively on 28.12.2020. This has resulted in further dilution of shareholding of defendant Nos. 1 and 4 in defendant No. 2. It is further submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that in acquiring the shareholding of defendant No. 2 by defendant No. 3 acting through its subsidiaries i.e. defendant Nos. 7 and 8, breach of order dated 23.08.2013 has been committed. Thus, the present suit for declaration has been filed with prayer for declaring the allotments as detailed in Paras 22 and 23 of the plaint, void ab initio and not resulting in creation of any valid right, title or interest in favour of the defendants, with further prayer for direction to the defendants to cancel all share certificates that have been issued in lieu of the impugned allotments. There is also a prayer for issuing decree for restraining the defendants from creating any third party rights....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tiff is not only guilty of non-disclosure and suppression of material facts and orders passed in various proceedings, the present is a case of non-est filing due to non- filing of statement of truth as contemplated under the Commercial Courts Act. 14. It is further submitted on behalf of defendant Nos. 1, 4 and 6 that the present suit is not maintainable, since the appropriate remedy with respect to allotment of shares is to initiate proceedings under Section 59 of the Companies Act before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). As per Section 430 of the Companies Act, Civil Courts do not have any jurisdiction qua allotment of shares. Thus, it is contended that the only remedy available with the plaintiff is to approach the NCLT. The present plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC, being barred by law. 15. It is further contended that the present suit is barred by limitation. The cause of action first arose in the year 2014, since the first allotment of share, that is sought to be challenged, is of the year 2014. 16. It is also the case on behalf of defendant Nos. 1, 4 and 6 that the shareholding of defendant No.1 was never transferred to anyon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd. and others, 2002 SCC Online Del 886 XII. Ramesh Chand Vs. Tek Chand & Others, 2005 (80) DRJ 166 XIII. M/s Karan Industries & Others Vs. D.C.M Limited & Others, 1993 (27) DRJ 528 XIV. Shashi Prakash Khemka (dead) through legal representatives and Another Vs. NEPC Micon (now NEPC India Limited) and Others, (2019) 18 SCC 569 XV. Vikram Jairath and Another Vs. Middleton Hotels Private Limited and Others, 2019 SCC Online Cal 351 XVI. SAS Hospitality Pvt Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Surya Constructions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11909 XVII. Shiraj Investment & Finance limited And Others Vs. Union of India Thr. Secretary and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4361 XVIII. Delhi & District Cricket Association Vs. Sudhir Kumar Aggarwal and Others, 2020 SCC Online Del 1223 XIX. Azar Hussain Vs. Rajeev Gandhi, 1986 Sup SCC 315 XX. Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Others Vs. Asst. Charity Commissioner and Others, 2004 3 SCC 137 XXI. T. Arvindandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and Another, 1977 4 SCC 467 20. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of defendant No.2 has also raised objection to the maintainability....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not maintainable. The arbitral proceedings stood terminated upon passing of the final award. Accordingly, the interim order had merged with the final award on 14.12.2016 and could not be said to have been continued thereafter. 25. Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for defendant No. 2 submits that Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for limitation period of 3 years from the date on which the right to sue first accrues. As per plaintiff's own case, it became aware of the share allotments uptil December 2017 in defendant No. 1, in January and October 2017 and some time thereafter. Therefore, the challenge to all the transactions ought to have been made latest by December 2020. It is further submitted that the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Re: Cognizance for extension of Limitation, also does not come to the rescue of the plaintiff, as the effective date of filing of the present suit appears to be in July 2022. 26. Defendant No.2 has also raised the objections with respect to plaintiff having paid deficient court fees and the present suit being not maintainable in view thereof. It is also the case on behalf of defendant No.2 that issue bein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 2.05 crores, whereas the reliefs in question have a value running into hundreds of crores. 30. It is submitted that Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013 together with the NCLT (Procedure for Reduction of Share Capital of Company) Rules, 2016 provide that the NCLT must supervise the cancellation of the shares. Under Section 59 of Companies Act, 2013, any person aggrieved and wanting to cause a rectification in the Register of members of a company must approach the NCLT. It is submitted that rectification of the Register is a natural consequence of every allotment and cancellation of shares. In fact under Section 430 of the Companies Act, exclusive jurisdiction is conferred on the NCLT in relation to company matters and the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is specifically ousted. 31. It is further contended by Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Advocate that the suit is barred by limitation. It is submitted that the plaintiff has inter-alia prayed for cancellation of allotted shares of defendant No.2. In this regard, Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that a suit for declaration must be filed within 3 years when the right to sue first accrues. It is submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds the plaintiff, which would give plaintiff a right or entitlement to seek any claims, assets or performance of any obligation against the said defendants. The plaintiff has at best rights in its shares in BPL Medical, but that does not extend to preventing or binding BPL Medical from raising funds or operating in any manner, so long as the shares held by BPL remained unaffected. 35. Mr. Gopal Jain, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of defendant No.8 has argued vehemently that the appropriate forum for seeking the reliefs in question is NCLT, which has the widest powers in terms of the Companies Act. The dispute in question falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of NCLT and that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in such matters is barred by Section 430 of the Companies Act. 36. It is further submitted on behalf of defendant No.8 that objections for rejection of a plaint may not be in the nature of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Once issues in that regard have been raised on behalf of the defendants, the court has to decide such issues. It is submitted that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. 37. Defendant Nos. 7 & 8 have relied upon common....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 of the plaint, it has been mentioned that the plaintiff has filed an application under Section 59 of the Companies Act before the NCLT, Bench at Bengaluru seeking rectification of Register of defendant No.2 company. It is submitted that the plaintiff has not filed the same along with the present plaint. Similarly, the plaintiff has not disclosed that it has filed execution before the Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The said fact is not even mentioned in the plaint. It is submitted that liberty was taken on behalf of the plaintiff on the first date of hearing itself before this court to file additional documents. Despite the same, the aforesaid documents have not been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. 41. It is further contended that the present plaint filed with deficient court fees is a non-est filing. It is submitted that the total shares allotted to the plaintiff, as disclosed in the plaint is to the tune of 9,89,15,716 shares. The face value of the said shares is Rs.10/- each, thus, the value of the shares in favour of the plaintiff is approximately Rs. 98 crores. Hence, the court fees of Rs.2 Lakh filed by the plaintiff is deficient and the suit valued at only Rs.2.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thers, 2022 SCC Online Del 2235 20) Vikram Jairath and Others Vs. Middleton Hotels Private Limited and Others, 2019 SCC Online Cal 6663 21) Aruna Oswal v. Pankaj Oswal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 79 22) Ammonia Supplies Corpn. (P) Ltd. v. Modern Plastic Containers (P) Ltd. (1998) 7 SCC 105. 43. I have heard the various parties and considered the documents on record. 44. The submissions and objections as raised on behalf of the defendants are essentially in the nature of rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 45. Law is settled in this regard that for the purposes of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the averments and materials in the plaint are germane. The contrary pleas taken by the defendants on the merits of the plaint are wholly immaterial for the purposes of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In this regard, Supreme Court in the case of Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat and Others, (2021) 9 SCC 99, held as follows :- "17. Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC provides that the plaint shall be rejected "where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law". Hence, in order to decide whether the suit is barred by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th respect to different allotment of shares carried out on various dates including on 20.03.2017, 10.05.2017, 06.12.2017 and 28.12.2020. 49. It is the case of plaintiff that the present suit has been duly presented for the purposes of limitation in terms of the Delhi High Court Original Side Rules, 2018 on 03.01.2022. As per the case put forward by the plaintiff, there is no delay since the period from 14.02.2020 to 30.05.2022 stands excluded from the period of limitation and extended vide order dated 10.01.2022 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Misc. Application no. 665/2021 in suo moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020. 50. It may be noted here that Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held that with respect to limitation specified under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, in cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. 51. The pleadings in the plaint are to the effect that the plaintiff came to know of dilution of sharehold....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat is relevant for answering the matter in issue in the context of the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, is to examine the averments in the plaint. The plaint is required to be read as a whole. The defence available to the defendants or the plea taken by them in the written statement or any application filed by them, cannot be the basis to decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d). Only the averments in the plaint are germane. It is common ground that the registered sale deed is dated 18- 10-1996. The limitation to challenge the registered sale deed ordinarily would start running from the date on which the sale deed was registered. However, the specific case of the appellant-plaintiffs is that until 2013 they had no knowledge whatsoever regarding execution of such sale deed by their brothers, original Defendants 1 and 2, in favour of Jaikrishnabhai Prabhudas Thakkar or Defendants 3 to 6. They acquired that knowledge on 26- 12-2012 and immediately took steps to obtain a certified copy of the registered sale deed and on receipt thereof they realised the fraud played on them by their brothers concerning the ancestral property and two days prior to the filing of the suit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pectus, we have no hesitation in reversing the view taken by the High Court and restoring the order of the trial court rejecting the application (Ext. 21) filed by Respondent 1-Defendant 5 under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. Consequently, the plaint will get restored to its original number on the file of the IVth Additional Civil Judge, Anand, for being proceeded further in accordance with law. We may additionally clarify that the trial court shall give effect to the order passed below Ext. 17 dated 20-1-2016, reproduced in para 8, above, and take it to its logical end, if the same has remained unchallenged at the instance of any one of the defendants. Subject to that, the said order must be taken to its logical end in accordance with law." 53. On the aspect of rejection of plaint on the ground that suit is barred by limitation, Supreme Court has held in the case of Sri Biswanath Banik and Another Vs. Sulanga Bose and Others, (2022) 7 SCC 731, that at this stage what is required to be considered is the averments in the plaint. Only in a case where on the face of it, it is seen that the suit is barred by limitation, then and then only a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rule 11CPC, the Court has to go through the entire plaint averments and cannot reject the plaint by reading only few lines/passages and ignoring the other relevant parts of the plaint. 7.2. Applying the law laid down by this Court in Ram Prakash Gupta [Ram Prakash Gupta v. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, (2007) 10 SCC 59] to the facts of the case on hand and on going through the entire plaint averments, it cannot be said at this stage that the suit is barred by limitation on the face of it ............". 54. In view of the aforesaid, it is held that the defendants have not been able to make out a case for rejection of plaint on the ground of the suit being barred by limitation. These are certainly triable issues in view of the submissions made in the plaint. It cannot be said at this stage that the present suit is barred by limitation on the face of it. 55. As regards the objections raised by the defendants in respect of the bar in view of Section 430 of the Companies Act, it has been submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the composite reading of the plaint shows that the same has been filed with respect to the allotment of shares of D2 to D4, D6, D7 and D8, as set out at par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad [Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad, (2005) 11 SCC 314], it was held that the dispute as to inheritance of shares is eminently a civil dispute and cannot be said to be a dispute as regards oppression and/or mismanagement so as to attract the Company Court's jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 398. Adjudication of the question of ownership of shares is not contemplated under Section 397. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder : (SCC pp. 366-67, paras 143-44) "143. It is also not in dispute that the matter relating to her claim to succeed FRG as his Class I heir is pending adjudication in Civil Suit No. 725 of 1991 in the Baroda Civil Court. She claimed title in respect of 8000 shares by inheritance in terms of the Hindu Succession Act. Indisputably, in terms of Section 15 of the said Act she is a Class I heir but the appellants herein contend that the said provision has no application having regard to Section 5(2) thereof as inheritance in the family is governed by the rule of primogeniture. A pure question of title is alien to an application under Section 397 of the Companies Act wherefor the lack of p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 430 of the Companies Act, 2013 is not applicable to the present case since the NCLT is not empowered to determine the issues/prayers as sought for in the present suit which pertain to rights, title and interest qua the alleged allotments. 60. The case laws as relied upon by the defendants are not applicable to the facts of the present matter since, in those cases the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was considered to be barred as those suits were filed for disputes inter-se amongst members of the Company regarding oppression and management of the affairs of the company, for adjudication of which the NCLT has extremely wide powers under Section 241-242 of the Companies Act. 61. The judgments as relied upon by the defendants on the aspect that the civil suit remedy would be barred, are clearly distinguishable and will not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In Shashi Prakash Kelka and Anr. (supra) [(2019) 18 Supreme Court Cases 569] the subject matter of the dispute pertained to exercise of powers under Section 111-A of the Companies Act, 1956 for transfer of shares in violation to the Depositories Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 1997. Supreme Court h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on this account also. 66. As regards the territorial jurisdiction, it is seen from the record that the initial order of restraint qua the transfer of the healthcare business of defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2 was passed at Delhi on 04.12.2012. The arbitral proceedings in which the orders dated 23.04.2013, 26.07.2013 and 08.08.2013 were passed, permitting defendant no. 1 to transfer its healthcare business in favour of defendant no. 2, were also held at New Delhi. The order dated 23.08.2013, by which defendant No. 1 was required to maintain its shareholding in defendant No. 2, was also passed at Delhi. The order dated 18.12.2018 convicting defendant nos. 1, 5, 9 and 10 for contempt of the order dated 23.08.2013, was also passed at Delhi. The Bill Discounting Facilities dated 27.12.2002 and 11.06.2003, the terms of which have been violated by defendant no. 1 and which has ultimately led to the disputes as raised in the present suit, was also executed at New Delhi. Thus, it is held that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit as part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. 67. As regards the obje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nded in respect of Commercial Courts Act. It is submitted that Order 11 Rule 1(4) stipulates that in case of urgent filing, the plaintiff may seek to rely on additional documents, as a part of the above declaration on oath. It is further submitted that Order 11 Rule 1(5) CPC also allows for exemption from filing additional documents despite the same having been in the power and possession of the plaintiff, with the leave of the court. Further, Order 11 Rule 1(1)(c) also provides the opportunity to the plaintiff to, inter alia produce documents in answer to the case set up by the defendant. Thus, it is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that these exemptions were sought since there are various ongoing proceedings between the parties, many of which are not relevant to the present case set up by the plaintiff, however, they may be relied upon by the defendant as a defence. It is further submitted that the application under Section 59 of the Companies Act, which has been disclosed at para 45 of the plaint, though has been filed before the NCLT, Bengaluru, the defects in the same are still being cured. Hence, this disclosure was made to enable the plaintiff to file/bring on record the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e proceeding. Such an interpretation would only burden the court file with documents which have no relevance to the adjudication of the disputes. The aforesaid provisions of the CPC do not assist the case of the defendant." 73. Similarly, in the case of Valo Automotive Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sprint Cars Pvt. Ltd. and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4080, this Court has held that the plaintiff always has the right to file additional documents including invoices in response to the defence set up by the defendant under Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(II) of CPC. Thus, it has been held as follows: "12. The learned Trial Court has referred to the provisions of Order XI Rule 5 CPC, as applicable to the commercial disputes. But, it has overlooked the provisions of Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) CPC, which permits the plaintiff to file documents in answer to the case set up by the defendant subsequent to the filing of the plaint. The precise case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that when the respondents/respondents denied that invoices were ever raised, the application was moved to bring the invoices on record. Under Order XI Rule 5 CPC, the court can grant leave to the plaintiff to file documents, not fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atement of truth. Thus, as per the case put forward on behalf of the plaintiff, all defects qua statement of truth were cured well within the period covered under order dated 10.01.2022 as passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto W.P.(C) 3/2020. 78. In view of the aforesaid submissions and discussion, the present plaint cannot be rejected at this stage on this ground also. 79. At this stage, the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of National Highways Authority of India Vs. Bhubaneswar Expressway Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC Online Del 2421 may be referred to where re-filing of petitions filed on 26.02.2020 were carried out on 22.05.2020. The Division Bench of this Court held that the orders passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020 would also be applicable for delay in re-filing. Thus, it has been held as follows: "13. We have considered the aspect of condonation of delay and for the reasons following, are of the view that NHAI in the present case has disclosed sufficient cause for condonation of delay. ......... (B) On the anvil of judgments cited by the senior counsel for BEPL, we are unable to ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ects which are fundamental to the institution of the proceeding, is the party to be not given the benefit of initial filing and the date on which the defects are cured will have to be considered as the date of initial filing; and, (c) however when the defects are perfunctory and not affecting the substance of the application, the delay in re-filing could be condoned. Similarly, in DSA Engineers (Bombay) v. Housing and Urban Development Corporation (2004) SCC OnLine Del 298, defects of non- filing of Vakalatnama and non-obtaining of caveat report were held to be not substantial, to render the filing non-est. .......... (I) Applying the tests aforesaid laid down in Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited supra also, it will be seen, that (a) the delay in filing the appeal, was of 25 days i.e. from 1st February, 2020 to 26th February, 2020; (b) upon the Registry of this Court on scrutiny of the appeal paper book filed, raising objections, the re-filing was done within the permitted time; (c) it was not the objection of the Registry, that what was filed on 26th February, 2020, was not an appeal or lacked any of the essentials of the appeal; (d) not on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... days to be condoned; and, (m) NHAI has thus disclosed "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay, of 25 days, beyond 1st February, 2020 till 26th February, 2020." 80. Thus, the issue regarding condonation of delay in re-filing the suit also requires consideration. 81. The next submission made on behalf of defendants is in respect of suppression of documents by the plaintiff at the time of filing of the plaint. In this regard, it has been stated on behalf of the plaintiff that in the present case, in the first instance itself, before the hearing before this Court, order dated 27.03.2019 passed in Cont. Appeal No. 2/2019 had been filed on 24.07.2022 and a copy was also handed over during the course of hearing on 25.07.2022. It is submitted that the said order dated 27.03.2019 supports the case of the plaintiff in as much as it has been directed by way of the said order that till further orders of this Court the shareholding of defendant No.1 in BPL Medical Technologies Pvt. Ltd., will remain unchanged. It is submitted that the order dated 09.02.2022 filed by the defendant No.1 in CCP (O) No. 35/2017, refusing modification of the statement have no bearing whatsoever on the fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in defendant No.2, company to 51%. The plaintiff has not sought any relief qua title of the shares. RT 86. It is further contended that as per Section 7 (iv) (c) and (d) of the Court Fees Act, with respect to suits pertaining to declaration and consequential relief and to injunctions in respect of movable property having no market value, in all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which the plaintiff values the relief sought. The plaintiff has not sought any relief qua title of the shares. The plaintiff is only seeking declaration that the allotments as referred to at Para 22 and 23 of the plaint are void ab initio, and seeking cancellation of all share certificates issued in lieu of the impugned allotments. Since no relief/ right qua title of the shares has been sought by the plaintiff in the present suit, the plaintiff is not liable to pay court fees based on either the face value of the shares or the different valuation of the shares, as brought forth by the defendants. 87. Even otherwise, in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, a plaint is not liable to be dismissed merely on the ground of deficient court fees. Rather Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC specifies that the pla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a bypass and a fast-track route without for a moment taking the precious time of a court. At this juncture, it must be immediately noticed that the lawgiver has, in Section 12-A, provided for pre-institution mediation only in suits, which do not contemplate any urgent interim relief. Therefore, pre-institution mediation has been mandated only in a class of suits. We say this for the reason that in suits which contemplate urgent interim relief, the lawgiver has carefully vouchsafed immediate access to justice as contemplated ordinarily through the courts. The carving out of a class of suits and selecting them for compulsory mediation, harmonises with the attainment of the object of the law. The load on the Judges is lightened. They can concentrate on matters where urgent interim relief is contemplated and, on other matters, which already crowd their dockets. " 92. In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, it is held that the present plaint cannot be rejected without issuance of summons, as pleaded on behalf of the defendants. I.A. 11403/2022 (Application under Section 151 CPC for exemption from filing legible, dim, hand written, without left side margin and/or original doc....