9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Nos. 1 and 2, who were in possession and were threatened by the Plaintiff immediately to recourse to due legal process and filed the Civil Suit in year 2012, which culminated in the final judgment and order dated 15.09.2022 in favour of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as well as against the Plaintiff Company. The present suit filed after the passing of the final judgment and order dated 15.09.2022 is a gross abuse of process and is intended to nullify the binding effect of the said Judgment. A corporate entity is liable under the Companies Act, 2013 to make annual compliances with respect to its affairs by filing statutory returns. The Plaintiff Company would have been obliged between the year 2018 to 2024 to make several filings and would have immediately learnt that it is unable to do so since the company has been struck-off. This Court, therefore, finds no substance in the explanation offered by the Plaintiff Company - this Court is of the considered opinion that the captioned suit is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The present suit is dismissed with actual costs awarded in favour of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Since, Plaintif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at neither the Plaintiff Company nor its Directors are competent to swear any affidavit for or on behalf of the Plaintiff Company. 3.2. He further stated that the present suit in not maintainable, as the alleged documents relied upon by the Plaintiff Company herein, which forms the basis of Plaintiff Company s title over the suit property have already been declared null and void vide Judgment dated 15.09.2022 passed by the learned ADJ, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi [ District Court ] in the Civil Suit No. 208149/2016. He stated that the said civil suit was filed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 herein (plaintiffs therein). 3.3. He stated that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present suit be dismissed as not maintainable by this Court. 3.4. He submitted that though the Plaintiff Company has preferred an appeal before National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi [ NCLT, Delhi] for restoration of its name on the Register of RoC and however, even if the Plaintiff Company is restored, the same would not make the suit maintainable in light of the judgment dated 15.09.2022 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge. Submissions on behalf of the Plaintiff 4. In response, Mr. Ashok ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted by Sh. Raj Singh Malik in favour of the Plaintiff Company herein. 10. It is stated in the plaint that the Plaintiff Company was put in actual physical possession of the suit property on 25.08.2011. It is stated that Sh. Raj Singh Malik handed over the possession of the suit property to Mr. Ram Dilawri, the Director of the Plaintiff Company. It is stated that in October, 2011, the Plaintiff Company learnt that the suit property has been trespassed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in collusion with the other Defendants on the basis of registered documents, which to the knowledge to the Plaintiff Company are forged and fabricated. The relevant paragraph 5 and 6 of the plaint, which forms the basis of the Plaintiff s claim reads as under: - 5. That by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 30.10.1987 duly registered as Document no. 4733, in additional Book no. I, Volume no. 4812 on pages 185 to 187 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Delhi, the said Purushottam Nagesh Oak sold, transferred, conveyed and assigned the suit property in favour of Raj Singh Malik S/o. Shri Mohan Lal Malik of Regd. No. 4733, Book No. 1 Vol. 4812, Page No. 185-187 Dated 30.10.1987. Hence the said Raj Singh Mal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the District Court. The relevant paragraph 17 of the plaint reads as under: - 17. That the Defendant no. 1 and 2 have in fact in furtherance of the said design and in order to defeat and illegally prevent the Plaintiff Company from enjoying its said suit property, in the manner it wishes, have also filed a false and baseless suit based on concocted facts bearing no. CS (OS) 323 of 2012 before this Hon'ble Court against the Plaintiffs and other Defendants, inter alia seeking declaration of title to the said suit property amongst other relief, which was transferred to District Court due to pecuniary jurisdiction, being CS (OS) No. 8149/2016 pending in the Court of Ld. ADJ(S/E) Mr. Jay Thareja. It is needless to state herein that the said suit is completely false and based on false and concocted facts and is thus liable to be rejected at the very outset. (Emphasis Supplied) 13. It needs to be noted here that the averment in the plaint as regard pendency of the aforesaid suit in the District Court is falsified by Document No. 7 filed along with the plaint, which is the final order and judgment of the District Court dated 15.09.2022, whereby, the said Civil Suit filed by the De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of execution of the registered sale deed dated 25.08.2011, Ex. DW3/2(OSR), (iv) that as such, the defendant no. 2 company has no basis to claim title qua the suit property and (v) that the appropriate remedy for the defendant no. 2 company is to sue the defendant no. 1, for cancellation the registered sale deed dated 25.08.2011, Ex.DW3/2(OSR) on ground of fraud and consequent recovery of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- along with interest. ISSUE NO.3 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for declaration that the sale deed dated 30111 October, 1987 allegedly registered and executed between Sh. Purshottam Nagesh Oak and defendant no. 1 and the sale deed dated 28th June, 2011 executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no.2 as fake, forged, fabricated and null void? OPP 34. In view of the observation no. 3 made in paragraph 25 of this judgment and particularly in view of the failure of the defendants no. 1 to 4 to prove the due execution and registration of the sale deed dated 30.10.1987, Ex.DW3/4 (previously Ex.PW1 /83), this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants no. 1 to 4. It is held that the sale deed dated 30.10.1987, Ex.DW3/4 (previ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arguments. The relevant portion of the list of dates, which is misleading reads as under: - Suit bearing no. 8419/2016. Which was filed by Defendant No. 1 2 is at the stage of Final Argument. 17. Though the plaint bears the date of 28.09.2022, it is a matter of record that the plaint was kept pending in the Court s registry after the filing and no steps were taken for its listing up until 12.04.2023 i.e., after seven (7) months. The matter was first listed and taken up on the said date and even on this date, the Plaintiff did not bring to the learned Single Judge s attention, the passing of the final order and judgment dated 15.09.2022, which categorically held that Plaintiff Company has no right, title and interest in the suit property. The reliefs sought in the present suit on basis of the title could not have been entertained by this Court in view of the final order and judgment dated 15.09.2022, which was then subsisting and continues to operate till date. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the order for registering the suit and issuance of summons on 12.04.2023 was obtained by the Plaintiff Company by defrauding the learned Single Judge. 18. The Plaintiff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding that the sale deed dated 30.10.1987 is non-existent and therefore, the subsequent sale deed dated 25.08.2011 cannot pass on any title in favour of the Plaintiff Company. The said findings were returned under the heading Observation-3 and issue no. 3 in the said judgment. In fact, the District Court has issued a permanent injunction against the Plaintiff Company restraining it from relying upon the sale deeds dated 30.10.1987 and 25.08.2011. In view of the said permanent injunction, the Plaintiff Company could not have instituted this suit in the first instance and the institution of this suit is thus barred. The findings of the District Court for Issue No. 4, thereby granting the permanent injunction reads as under: - ISSUE NO.4 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 35. In view of the fact that all the documents propounded by the defendants no. 1 to 4 as well as all the documents propounded by the defendants no. 5 to 7 have been found to be sham, bogus and null/void documents, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. All the defendants of this suit are permanently restrained (a) from i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been cheated by the other accused in a criminal conspiracy. It has been also contended that an amount of Rs 1,80,00,000/- has been indeed transferred from the account of the company of accused Ram Dilawari to the account of accused Raj Singh Malik through pay orders and had he been involved in the present case, he would not have transferred the money through pay orders so as to leave a trail of the payment connecting him with the property. It has been finally argued that while the other accused have got enriched by wrongful gains and the complainant has retained the possession of the property in question, but accused Ram Dilawari has suffered huge monetary loss apart from the proceedings in the present case. It is pertinent to note that despite alleging furnishing of a wrong address by a person who is admittedly a NRI, the prosecution has not brought any material on record to show that accused Ram Dilawari or his wife were either not residing in the property at Panchsheel Park at the time of furnishing the relevant details with the registrar of companies or that they had not made any arrangements for receiving correspondence pertaining to heir company at the said address while it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trict Court, the assertion made by the Plaintiff Company at paragraph 6 of the plaint that it was handed over the actual physical property of the suit property by Sh. Raj Singh Malik is ex-facie false. 25. The present suit has been filed for seeking recovery of possession of the suit property from the Defendants on basis of the sale deed dated 30.10.1987 and sale deed dated 25.08.2011. However, as noticed hereinabove, the District Court on 15.09.2022 has granted a permanent injunction against the Plaintiff Company from relying upon the said documents and from interfering in the peaceful possession of the Defendants. In view of this permanent injunction, the present suit for recovery of possession is barred in law. 26. The disputes between the parties arose in the year 2011 as acknowledged in the plaint at paragraphs 29 and 30. The Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who were in possession and were threatened by the Plaintiff immediately to recourse to due legal process and filed the Civil Suit in year 2012, which culminated in the final judgment and order dated 15.09.2022 in favour of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as well as against the Plaintiff Company. The present suit filed after the passing of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
