9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f are duly elected in the annual general body meeting held on 20-6-1998; for declaration that E.G.M. held on 25-11-1998 is null and void; for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the properties of the company. 3. The registered office of the 10th respondent is at Noombal Village and the defendants 1 to 4 are its directors. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the cause of action for the suit had arisen within the jurisdiction of this court and all the defendants are leaving or working for gain or having their offices within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. But the suit property situate outside the city of Channai and therefore this application to leave to sue the defen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at [2001] 7 SCC 698 where the Supreme Court has held that under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent if prior leave of the court has been obtained and the cause of action has arisen in part within the local limits of original jurisdiction of the High Court, then the High Court can decide the case. It was held in case that the suit "on land" is a suit in which the relief claimed relates to title or delivery of possession of land or immovable property. 6. The learned counsel further submitted that whether the plaint is to be taken on file or is to be rejected shall be determined only on the averments found in the plaint. It cannot refer the written statement or any other arguments advanced by the defendant. In support of his contention he relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uit cannot be filed on the basis of part cause of action. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants relied that in the order in Company Petition No. 49 of 1987 dated 20-3-1988 this Court has held that the purported allotment of 60,000 shares with the directors themselves was for an illusory consideration. Therefore this part cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court and, hence, this suit can be filed in this court. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the order of this court does not refer to the allotment of shares in the present case (to Sukumaran and others). That was with reference to the allotment of shares to one U.K. Rajah and that, therefore, that finding, even assuming, is part cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in a far off place, if this argument is to be accepted, the suit can be filed in a far off place which may even be outside the State. Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is not acceptable. The residence of the Directors cannot be equated to the residence of the company. Since the directors are not the owners of the property of the company the jurisdiction on the basis of the residence of owners of the movable property. 12. The cause of action for the filing of the suit is the act of allotment of shares. For the reasons stated above, the shares were allotted only where the company resided (i.e.,) where the registered office situate. Therefore, the cause of action relied upon by the applicant has arisen outside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
