9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 2068X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Adv for R-9 and 10 JUDGMENT (ORAL) CM No. 28884/2018 (Exemption) This is an application filed on behalf of the petitioner for exemption from filing certified copies of the annexures. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. CM(M) 822/2018 and CM No. 2883/2018 1. The petition assails the impugned order dated 3.4.2018 of the learned ADJ-03,Patiala House Court, New Delhi in CS No. 57946/16 whereby an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by the defendant No.4 to 6 to the said suit arrayed on record as respondent no.4 to 6 to the present petition had been allowed. 2. It has been submitted, at the outset, on behalf of the petitioners that the relief sought through the present petition is only against the respondents No. 4 to 6. Taking the said aspect into account, it is not considered essential to issue any notice to the remaining respondent arrayed on record. 3. Initial submissions have been made on behalf of the petitioner and on behalf of the respondents No. 4 to 6 qua the averments made in the petition. 4. CS 57946/16 which is pending before the learned Court of the Additional District Judge-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir servants, agents or assigns from appropriating and/or using any funds or dealing with any assets of the Company including funds wrongfully obtained by them in the name of the Company; and (i) Award Damages to the Plaintiff Company against the Defendants No.1-8 and hold the said Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the same; and (j) Award costs of the Suit to the Plaintiffs; (f) Grant all such other reliefs which the Hon ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be allowed in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants. 5. During the course of the proceedings, the respondent No.1 to the present petition who is stated to be the defendant No.1 to the suit vide order dated 27.10.2010 in FAO (OS) 621/2010 before this Court, the finding of the learned Single Judge vide order dated 13.8.2010 vide which the written submissions of the defendant No. 7, i.e., Siddharth Chaudhary was deemed to have not been filed on behalf of the Society, the society being arrayed on record as defendant No.1 i.e., the respondent No.1 to the present petition, and thus it was indicated that there was no written statement of the defendant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led in the information provided by the Indian Security Press, Nasik to the Defendants No. 4 to 6 through RTI Act 2005, it is apparent that the aforesaid Transfer Deeds are forged documents manufactured at a much later date that what is alleged by the Plaintiffs No. 2 to 4. 8. That the Defendants had sought information under RTI Act 2005, from the Indian Security Press, Nasik, in respect of the Share Transfer Stamps affixed by the said Plaintiffs on the Transfer Deeds Society. It was thereby found that on the Transfer Deed allegedly dated 26.02.1968, Stamps for the denomination of FIFTY PAISA first time printed only on 27.09.1979. Further, stamps for the denomination of Twenty Five PAISA affixed on the transfer deeds dated 29.01.1974, were in fact printed only on 20.12.1978 for the first time the stamp for Two Rupees affixed therein was printed only on 13.02.1979 for the first time. Said revelation of facts specifically prove that since the claimed documents could not have been executed prior to 29.01.1974, 20.12.1978 and 13.02.1979 respectively, the Plaintiff has dishonestly and fraudulently tries to use forged documents as genuine to produce as evidence before this Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 150 shares in the year 1983 in addition to the already issued 500 shares, and further transferred all its share from time to time to third parties vide five Transfer Deeds dated 26.2.1968 (for 150 shares) and 29.1.1979 (four deeds for a total 110 shares) and there by ceased to be a member of the plaintiff company in the year 1989 as per the record of the company. However, as has been revealed in the information provided by the Indian Security Press, Nasik to the Defendants No.4 to 6 through RTI Act, 2005, it is apparent that the aforesaid Transfer Deeds were forged documents manufactured at a much later date than what is alleged by the plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 and that it had been found on the Transfer Deed allegedly dated 26.2.1968, that stamps for the denomination of Fifty Paisa were affixed whereas the said stamps were found to have been for the first time printed only on 27.9.1979. further stamps for the denomination of Twenty Five Paisa were affixed on the transfer deed dated 29.1.1974, were in fact printed only on 20.12.1978 for the first time and the stamp for Two Rupees affixed therein was printed only on 13.2.1979 for the first time. It was thus submitted on behalf of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e domain of the suit filed by the plaintiffs and the relief sought against the respondents No.4 to 6. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a review petition against this order dated 6.11.2009 was also declined in review petition No. 153/2011 vide order dated 1.4.2011 of the Hon ble Division Bench of this Court and that the challenge to the said order was also declined vide order dated 19.8.2011 by the Hon ble Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) Nos. 21257-21258/2011. 9. On behalf of the respondents No. 4 to 6, it has been submitted that it is settled law that amendments necessary and germane for requisite adjudication of the matters in controversy necessarily are to be allowed and reliance has thus been placed on the verdict of the Supreme Court in Andhra Bank v. ABN Amro bank N.V. and Ors.; (2007) 3 RCR (Civil) 585 to contend that the only question at the time of considering the amendment of the pleadings would be whether such amendment would be necessary for decision of the real controversy between the parties in the suit and that the merits or demerits of the contentions of the amendment cannot be taken into account. Reliance has also been placed on behalf of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been made, they cannot be allowed to be withdrawn and a plea inconsistent with an earlier plea containing an admission in favour of the plaintiff cannot be allowed to be withdrawn in as much as the written statement of the defendant No.1 not having been allowed to be brought on record, the implicit admission made thereby by non-submission and non-existence of the submission of the defendant No.1, coupled with the factum that its prayer for adoption of the written statement of defendants No.4 to 6, having been not rejected, and that admissions of thus made by the defendant No.1 cannot be allowed to be taken away or withdrawn by the amendment being allowed to the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in submission of their amended written statement, i.e. permitting para 7, 8 and 9 of the preliminary objections raised. 11. Vide the impugned order, it has been observed to the effect that there is a prayer made specifically by the plaintiff directing the defendants which would enable the defendants No.4 to 6 i.e., the respondents No.4 to 6 not to hold themselves out to be share holders of the plaintiff company as well as authorized representative of the company and that the whole case of the plai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ragged on and now stands withdrawn. The respondents have no explanation for their silence over this long period of time. 32. The details of the manner of transfer of shares right up to 1989 has been fully explained by the appellants along with documents. Learned counsel for the respondents did seek to plead that when a direction was passed by the Company Law Board these documents were not produced and it was claimed that there had been a fire in the office. Be that as it may even at that stage it was pleaded by the appellants that the records were old and whatever they had been able to lay hands on had been produced. Whatever further documents have been located have been produced which substantiate the case of the appellants. 13. Having taken the said aspects into account the plaintiffs are indicated to have been granted a restraint order in their favour on the basis of share transfer certificate presuming them to be genuine as observed vide order dated 6.11.2009, of the Division Bench of this court wherein it has been observed inter alia to the effect: The shares have been transferred in pursuance to the transfer deeds filed. No doubt , learned counsel for the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
