TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1427
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e directorial pattern and composition of the defendant nos. 8 to 15 are without authority and not binding upon the plaintiff; c) A decree of declaration that irrespective of shareholding and directorial patterns and/or composition of the defendant nos. 8 to 15, the properties, businesses and assets of such companies and firms including those mentioned in Annexure "B" hereto are joint amongst the plaintiff, the defendant no. 1 and the defendant no. 2; d) A decree of Mandatory Injunction be passed directing the defendants to restore the original share holding pattern and directorial pattern and/or composition in respect of the defendant nos. 8 to 15; e) Decree for mandatory injunction be passed directing the defendant no. 1, 2, 6 and 7 to disclose the full particulars of various movable properties including jewelry owned by Smt. Gayetri Gupta in the instant proceedings f) A preliminary decree be passed declaring that the plaintiff, the defendant no. 1 and the defendant no. 2 each having undivided 1/3rd share in the businesses, assets and properties; g) A final decree for partition by appointment of a Commissioner of Partition in accordance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o and admittedly the entitlement of the plaintiff which included Ipsa Credit Private Limited, Mars Viniyog Private Limited and Parag Finlease Private Limited were made over to the plaintiff. 6. Mr. Bose submits that settlement arrived between the parties during the life time of the mother of the parties has been given effect to and right have been transferred and benefits have been enjoyed, thus the plaintiff cannot challenge the said settlement and seek partition of the properties. He has relied upon the judgment in the case of Khatri Hotels Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2011) 9 SCC 126 and submits that successive violation of the right will not give rise to a fresh cause of action and the suit will be liable to be dismissed it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the date when the right to sue first accrued. 7. Mr. Bose submits that the shareholders or the directors neither have any right nor can claim any title to any property owned by the company. The plaintiff as an individual does not have any cause of action to claim any right, title or interest of any assets or properties owned by any incorporated company. He submits that the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and 2 and their father to be the part of the business of joint family of the plaintiff, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 and their father. 10. After the death of the father on 27th June, 2003, the plaintiff and defendant nos.1 and 2 continued to carry on their business jointly as joint owners of such businesses, assets and properties owned in the name of the defendant nos. 8 to 15. The mother died on 9th May, 2021. He submits that after the death of father, the plaintiff and the defendant nos.1 and 2 continued to carry on businesses as jointly having 1/3rd share each or interest thereon. 11. Mr. Sen submits that after the death of father, the plaintiff time and again called upon the defendant nos. 1 and 2 to partition the companies, properties, businesses and assets which continued to remain joined on the basis of their respective valuations so that it could be allotted amongst the three brothers in equal shares but the defendant nos. 1 and 2 refused to partition. 12. Mr. Sen submits that issue of limitation is always a mixed question of law and fact and to determine whether the claims are ex-facie barred by limitation is to be read as a whole and no particular averment can be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....endant companies were situated in Kolkata where the defendant no. 2 was located, the defendant no. 2 who in concert and collusion with the defendant no. 1 has altered the position and is now alleging that some of such companies, properties, assets and businesses are not joint. 29. The defendant no. 1 and 2 is seeking to deny the plaintiff's lawful shares in the joint companies, properties, businesses and assets on frivolous and baseless grounds by contending that the defendant nos. 8 to 15 are juristic entities and cannot be subject matter of joint properties and cannot be subjected to partition. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 are also illegally contending the independent right, title and interest of their family members, some of such companies, businesses, properties and assets which are in fact jointly owned by the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 1 and 2. In addition thereto, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 are taking shelter of an advice of a mediator namely, Sourabh Jalan which has communicated to the parties by way of an email dated 24th November, 2012 which is not at all binding upon the plaintiff. Thus, the question of acting in terms of such email by the plaintiff does....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed, or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe such right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. Order 7 Rule 11(d) provides that where a suit appears from the averments in the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected." The defendants have further relied upon the judgment in the case of Khatri Hotels Private Limited (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: "30. While enacting Article 58 of the 1963 Act, the legislature has designedly made a departure from the language of Article 120 of the 1908 Act. The word "first" has been used between the words "sue" and "accrued". This would mean that if a suit is based on multiple causes of action, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues. To put it differently, successive violation of the right will not give rise to fresh cause and the suit will be liable to be dismissed if it is beyond the period of limitation counted from the day when the right to sue first accrued." 20. The plaintiff has relied upon the judgment in the case of P.V. Guru ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... right in rejecting the plaint on the ground of limitation, especially in the facts and circumstances of this case." 21. In the present case, the plaintiff has given the details that after the death of the father, the plaintiff, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 continue to expand the joint businesses and the entire earning and profit out of the joint businesses are enjoyed jointly by the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 and 2. It is also mentioned in the plaint that the defendant nos.1 and his wife were also looking after the business of the companies at Jharkhand and Bihar and the defendant no.2 and his wife were looking after the business and companies having head offices at West Bengal and Bangalore. 22. The plaintiff has also categorically alleged that the defendant no. 2 being the qualified Chartered Accountant and also a Company Secretary having advantage of commanding position in connivance with the defendant no.1 altered the position of the shareholding pattern and directorship of several companies. The plaintiff has given the details of misdeeds of the defendant nos.1 and 2 in paragraphs 19 (i) to (vii) of the plaint. 23. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Companies Act, 2013. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 avoided to disclose accounts and other information of all companies under their control, since 2008 onwards. The defendant nos.1 and 2 fraudulently transferred 12,02,900 shares of the plaintiff by forging signature of the plaintiff on share transfer forms, after removal of the plaintiff from the directorship of six companies. The defendant nos.1 and 2 along with the defendant nos. 6 and 7 fraudulently transferred the shares of Mahant Vanijja Private Limited, Raga Commercial Private Limited, Paragon Infrastructure Private Limited and Paragon Fincrop Private Limited in favour of the defendant nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 and their children and amalgamated Raga Commercial Private Limited, Paragon Infrastructure Private Limited, Paragon Fincrop Private Limited with Mahant Vanijja Private Limited, Paragon Finance Limited, Basera Abasan Private Limited, Kit Commercial Private Limited and Naman Barter Private Limited. 27. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 have removed jewelries, cash and other assets including documents and files of Radheshyam Gupta. The def....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Court has jurisdiction to reject the plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action, where the relief claimed is undervalued and the valuation is not corrected within a time as fixed by the Court, where insufficient court fee is paid and the additional court fee is not supplied within the period given by the Court, and where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Rejection of the plaint in exercise of the powers under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code would be on consideration of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467, the Hon'ble Court has held that if on a meaningful, not formal, reading of the plaint, it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the Court should exercise its power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. In Roop Lal Sethi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill reported in (1982) 3 SCC 487, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the plaint discloses no cause of action, it is obligatory upon the court to reject the pl....